Preppers

I first came across the term “prepper” when I read about the recent appalling loss of life at the Sandy Hook Primary School in Connecticut. Apparently the mother of the perpetrator was a “prepper” – meaning I believe, someone who is prepared for the worst case scenario or a disaster and there are no, or very few, survivors. So these “preppers” accumulate stocks of what they consider essential supplies – including weapons and the necessary ammunition.

Now I have no real quibble with the concept of storing food and while I have a philosophical aversion to having weapons in the home I recognise that there are certain situations when they are useful – mainly in a rural setting. I will admit to once owning a Beretta 9mm hand gun – this was about 40 years ago in Africa when things got a bit wild and woolly – but I never had occasion to use it and sold it after about five years. The problem was that I did not know where to keep it safe – particularly as we, at that time, employed servants.

My concern is about the psychological state of the “preppers”. What do they think will happen in a worst case scenario? Fighting off all comers to preserve your patch in a dire situation is not a good idea. No one can live in isolation and survive for long – we are gregarious creatures and need others of our kind for support, companionship and for our general well-being.

It is necessary to recognise that in extreme circumstances a community spirit is the only one that will ensure long term survival. A community spirit means sharing – both good things and bad; both times of plenty and times of hardship; both food, clothing and lack of food and clothing. If anyone has more than others - hoards and defends it against all comers others, who may have nothing, could possibly adopt the same attitude and attack to obtain the supplies they need for survival. If this happens then anarchy will prevail and anarchy means a complete breakdown of any semblance of order and is not good for the survival of anyone.

To adopt the presumed attitude of the “preppers” that, “I took the trouble to look after myself. It is your fault if you were stupid enough not to do the same. What’s mine is mine – you are not getting any of this. Go and look somewhere else”, is  not only very selfish but is a long term self defeatist attitude. There will be times when a “prepper” will need help of some kind. If a “prepper” is not prepared to accommodate the needs of others then why should others accommodate them?

We have to share and share alike; we need others around us to survive.

Now it could be virtual war!

There have been reports in the media about the possibility of the Americans developing autonomous robotic weapons to perform more and more front-line activities. These are robots that (they hope) will think logically and perform many of the tasks currently performed by human soldiers.

The whole reason behind this is to save soldier’s lives. Very laudable and should be encouraged. But I believe this misses the mark by a wide margin.

It misses the mark because it ignores the fact that no one ever really “wins” a war – the long term effects of wars are unforeseeable and normally very unpleasant. The “victors” would have incurred an enormous financial and human cost – to be felt for generations. And the cost to the “losers” is almost incalculable; tremendous damage to infrastructure and housing and huge loss of life in all sectors. So why fight?

I suggest that the robot “phase” be skipped over entirely and that those who wish to satisfy their urge to fight, destroy and to kill engage in a “virtual” war. Computer technology has advanced to the stage where such “wars” could be very realistic – a form of advanced computer game. To develop this concept a stage further robots should be devised that would  fight these “virtual” wars on our behalf!!

Think of all the money that would be saved! Think of all the lives that would be saved! Think of all the productive elements that could be directed into improving the underdeveloped regions of the world! Think of all the money, previously spent on military research, that could be used to improve the general human condition – health care (cancer for one thing), research into mental well-being (depression, schizophrenia and such like) that debilitates millions of people – and then there is food production.

It is completely illogical and defies rational thought that we (that is human beings) should spent vast amounts of money developing new and better ways to kill our fellow beings while millions are starving to death.

Why not fight “virtual” wars and spend the money saved to help our fellow beings!

Think about it.

Consequences.

There are always consequences for anything we do. These consequences cannot be avoided or limited in any way – each one of us feels the effect of these, both negative and positive, on a daily basis. We do ‘good’ things and good things happen; we do ‘bad’ things and bad things happen.

The thing is that we can never, or at best very seldom, tie any specific action or behaviour or sequences of actions or behaviours, to any particular consequence or sequence of consequences. There are some obvious ones certainly – aim a gun at someone and pull the trigger and there is a very good likelihood of injuring or killing them; spend more money than you earn and you end up in debt. These are brutal, up front, in your face type consequences. What I am talking about are the subtle ones that are not immediately obvious; the ones that may take years to work their way through the ‘system’ as it were.

Take two current problems the World is facing at the moment, which are consequences of activities, actions, behaviours and thought patterns that go back many years – generations in fact. The first one is ‘climate change’ and the second is the Middle East (Israel, Gaza, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan).

Now whatever you think about the science behind the various claims and counter claims supporting or denying Man’s involvement in this debate one fact (to me) is obvious. We CANNOT continue to despoil, pillage and exploit the resources of the world as we are doing at the present moment. We cannot continue doing what we are now without suffering consequences of some sort. More of the same will be disastrous – there will be consequences we cannot predict but only sense.

I know that climate change – natural change – has always been a feature of geological time; ice-ages, extreme volcanic activity playing havoc with weather patterns and such like. This is natural and I have no argument with this – we can’t do anything about it anyway – it just happens and we (here we go) have to live with the consequences. My point is that by doing nothing we are not HELPING nature, the World, the Gaia, or whatever you call it, to recover naturally. And it will recover naturally – with time but we are not giving it that time.

Exploitative human activity is damaging the Nation and ‘our’ World to the detriment of all.

• Soil degradation. Much of our precious topsoils is either blown away (dust storms) or washed away (soil erosion) each year. Poor environmental planning and farming practices are the cause.

• Excessive use of chemical fertilizers. Because of the soil degradation more and more chemicals are being used which produce foods that are not as nutritious as they should be. They are deficient in essential minerals.

• Water. The essential element for life on earth. In the case of fresh water, in quantity, storage and quality, improvements are vital for the future health of the Nation and the World.

• Industrial activity. In the quest for ever increasing profits enormous quantities of toxic and polluting substances are being pumped into the atmosphere, the soil and water (both fresh and salt) of our Nation and the World. Huge tracts of land are being cleared of trees and other vegetation for what – profit?

These are just a few aspects of the immensely complex and interwoven matrix which I consider comes under the umbrella of ‘climate change’. We are in a position to do SOMETHING (my preferred option) rather than NOTHING (as advocated by the sceptics). Just think about it, even if, as some of the sceptics believe, the world is getting colder, not hotter, how will this help? It will just herald a new dark-age with shorter growing seasons.

From an economic point of view I suspect we are going to suffer, one way or another. This will be the consequence of thoughtlessness, of greed and the extreme capitalistic ideal of ‘profit’, no matter the cost (in the lives of all flora and fauna and economic cost).

Now for the second big problem – the conflict in the Middle East. This goes back a long time. Without going into a detailed history of the region one could really consider the problem as being the consequence of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (after the First World War) and the British withdrawal from India (and Pakistan) and Iraq and the West’s interference in Iran and Palestine. The immediate cause, I suspect, is the false idea that the ‘West’ can impose its will, its ideas and its manner of living on peoples who trying to work out their own responses to their environment and to world events.

To think, even for a moment, that peace will be established by the production of greater numbers of ever more complex weapons is madness. Most of us have still to learn that peace is not external, but an internal state, that then translates to all things external. How can there ever be peace if nations or groups of people are constantly thinking about and preparing for war? How can there ever be peace if people are constantly thinking violent and warlike thoughts? It is never going to happen.

A cessation of violence or truce may be established if someone or some nation subdues another by being stronger or having a bigger and better army. But that is not peace. Think of the Korean conflict in the 1950s and how about the various Israeli/Palestinian conflicts. There has never been peace in these areas. We need to think ‘outside the box’ and use our accumulated wisdom in a rational, measured and reasonable manner.

There is no peace because the underlying problem has never been addressed – injustice, perceived or actual, is at the root of most conflicts and will be the root of the Middle East and the Korean problems. Sort out the injustices (perceived or otherwise) and the reason for the violence is removed. There is nothing that rankles and festers in the mind as much as injustice. If individuals have a feeling they have been hard done by and bear a grudge because of this then, rightly or wrongly, they will feel justified in fighting (as they may think) to redress the injustice.