LANIER: Yeah, it's bloodlust with the heebie-jeebies in the same society. That, I think, may be unprecedented, and it may be a sign of good things to come. I can't help but notice that it comes at the same time that there's an increasing role of women in the society, and it might be related to that.
The next one has to do with human nature, as opposed to male nature. Are war and people simply inseparable, and should we acknowledge it rather than try to eradicate it?
The final idea has to do with "face of the enemy" research. There were studies that asked people in different cultures to draw pictures of their enemies, and the pictures all looked remarkably the same. They always had exaggerated canine teeth and a certain sort of expression. That led to speculation about whether at an earlier stage in the human experience we were hunted by some sort of carnivore. It might sound silly.
FRIEDMAN: The problem is when you say something like that, you reach a level of intractability. Sociobiologists have been criticized for posing explanations that are intractable. If you go down that path, you've got problems.
LANIER: It's not an intractable situation at all. In fact, I think there's a lot of hope in that one.
I have been around military technology people a lot because of my role in virtual reality I've seen weapons from conception to implementation. And there is an extraordinary gadget lust that drives the military. So it's possible that war is just the ultimate expression of creativity. That's not an intractable one, either. In fact, one reason I am interested in developing things in virtual reality is that they're so fascinating. I can come up with problems that are harder than warfare to take up people's time.
FRIEDMAN: War to me is very much like sex. You can develop a theory that says sex is primarily for the exchange of genetic material, or that it's a celebration of life, or you can make up 50,000 theories about why human beings have sex, all of which are in some sense true, all of which by themselves miss the point. Because the answer is extraordinarily complex. It may be for fun, it may be for reproduction, for financial reasons, any number of things. War and sex are what I call the two abysmal--by that I mean deep--parts of the human condition.
PT: War and sex?
FRIEDMAN: Think about it. Every theory I've seen that contains an explanation of war fails. I think they fail for the same reason that explanations of sex fail. War derives from things so deep and so complex, I'm thoroughly baffled by it at the end of the day.
When I went to war, I did not go making geopolitical calculations. I went to war with a lust, and I came out...
PT: What was the lust for?
FRIEDMAN: I don't have very good words for this. When you're young and going to war, it's a genuinely exciting moment. You are going to risk yourself. On the battlefield, you are suddenly free. You realize: I'm here, I'm in it. Exaltation. Suddenly you're hit by another extraordinary feeling: my God, I can be killed. And: will I embarrass myself? It's like you're in a kaleidoscope and all of these extraordinary feelings are zipping by.
LANIER: As hard as it is, we can certainly take the time to continuously examine the question of where war comes from and what might make it go away.
FRIEDMAN: The poets think about it more than the social scientists.
LANIER: Well, I think we all have to think about it. I don't think we can afford to leave any stone unturned. I would discourage a sense of cynicism about that.
FRIEDMAN: I was not attempting to be cynical. I'm simply saying that I have thought about it almost daily for 25 years, and the more I think about it, the more I'm uncomfortable with the eloquent responses.
LANIER: What you were just saying about your personal history is very provocative because one of my questions was, what does war have to do with maleness and the rites of passage into adulthood? I'll tell you a story from my history. When I was about 18, I was traveling in Latin America and I came across a situation where government troops were getting ready to kill some people in the opposition. I was suddenly really nutty and stood up between them, saying: "I'm an American! Stop!" Really nutty. And the strange thing is that it worked. And afterwards I thought, How can I have possibly done something so stupid? But perhaps there was a part of me on some level seeking that same experience, facing a certain amount of risk and being truly free for that moment.
If war stems from unmet needs related to male adolescent ritual, that's something that we need to examine. I'm interested in the possibility of simply getting rid of war. I'd be no more willing to let go of that than to let go of the possibility of eradicating cancer. That's not to say I'm certain we can, but I am willing to use any energy at all in the quest.
FRIEDMAN: You make a basic assumption that I don't share, which is that war is pathological. I cannot understand how something as ubiquitous as war can simply be dismissed as pathological. It is not clear to me that it is an unspeakable evil. If it is, I need proof of it. Now, you're prepared to say: "I know that war serves no purpose. I will dedicate myself to eradicating it."
LANIER: I caution you not to put words in my mouth. You've just plunged the conversation, though, to its most fundamental philosophical and spiritual issues. To me, to say that war isn't evil is to say that nothing is evil.
Tags:
5 kilometers,
Bosnia,
camaraderie,
China,
coauthor,
Combat,
combat information center,
computer scientist,
credit card applications,
desert storm,
exhilaration,
fellow warriors,
future of war,
george friedman,
gulf war,
incoming missile,
jaron lanier,
morality,
psychological aspects,
sofas,
trappings,
War,
warship
