More subtle than smacking each other

While passing USS Nimitz, one of the US's massive nuclear aircraft carriers, I had an overwhelming sense of being struck really hard in the face by a huge fist. I then commented to those with me that, while that was impressive, it was fuck all use in the "war" against terror.

While in Washington I had a conversation about the possibility of winning conflicts without having to resort to physical combat.

I then, independently, had the later conversation referred to below about the possibility of geek inventiveness being put to this sort of use.

Dave Snowden points today to a book by a friend of his from which the following line is taken:

Knowledge, rather than power, is the only weapon that can prevail in a complex and uncertain environment awash with asymmetric threats, some known, many currently unknown.

In the long term I prefer to work towards the idealistic goal of avoiding global conflict by realising that there is more than enough stuff, space and shared interest for us all to live together on this planet without making people miserable enough to start punching each other. However I am also realistic enough to realise that this will take some time and that in the meantime subtler ways of containing and managing conflict would seem a good idea.

Better IMHO than this insanity.

Comments

[Bernie Goldbach]

Just wondering if you've ever walked through an aircraft carrier. Spend a few hours from bow to stern and report whether you've left without a bruise on your head.

The sense of industry aboard carriers I've visit always sparked memories of the command of the sea that Great Britain once held. Centuries ago, an armada whispered the desires of country whose flag it flew. Today, a carrier task force often seems inappropriate in the pursuit of just causes.

[Jon Husband]

I'm wondering about the use of the word "winning" with respect to conflicts.

It seems to me that one of the things being broufght (slowly) to light by the Web and by information and knowledge sharing is the range of diversity on this planet .. of cultures, of beliefs, of ways of living, of inequalities .. and of the obsolescence of the notion that there should be a global culture or a global dominance defined by one or several connected and dominant ideologies (let's say for sake of argument western-style capitalism and democracy circa 2007).

I am wondering whether we will be forced to recognize on more and wider levels that "winning" implies "losing", and that knowledge, not power will be a more inclusive and fairer way of resoving conflicts, a way that puts tangibility into the rhetoric of national leaders who are always saying they want to do this or that for "freedom" or for the greater general good while basically (and more and more visibly) seeking to protect the status quo and the advantages already in place for continuing to dominate, to "win" current and future conflicts.

What a pedant I can be ;-)

[Euan]

I keep trying to write these posts in such a way as to head you off at the pass Jon. The last paragraph was an attempt to convey the ideas in your comment but I obviously failed!

[Jon Husband]

Please .. do not let me provide any direction to your thinking or creative expression whatsoever. The best thing to do is to gently suggest that I not comment so much or any longer, and then of course you needn't be concerned about heading me off anywhere or anyhow.

I don't want to be as welcome as termites.

I do pay attention to language, mainly because 1) I often foul up what I want to say or convey enough to offer myself lessons, and 2) how we use language and convey meanings has paradoxically IMO become a sharper, more difficult task in the midst of all these bits of noise.

No doubt that's why I always write too much. I'm not good at writing what I think or am wondering about.

So, please accept my public apology for my pedantry.

Dand, this Web thing is good for coming to terms with friction without throwing beer glasses at each other.