Hehe, I think our views aren't very far from each other. While I do believe in the possibility of global peaceful co-operation, I'm afraid that our generation is not going to see a lot of that happening. The Golden Rule of ethics has been around for more than 2000 years, both Jesus and Muhammad taught along the lines "treat the others basically the same way you'd wish the others treat you" or in a bit more general form; "one should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated". But it might take another 2000 years for this simple idea to be more widely adopted...

Also, I do believe that there will always be a need to deal with possible criminal behaviour. I have a rather down-to-earth attitude towards self-defence (lethal methods involved, in cases where there isn't an another way out). No problem with that. But then the trick is, that agitators and war mongers know that, too.

I'm not sure but I'm under the impression that at the times of Cold War, a lot of ordinary Russians felt that NATO is threatening them, and therefore they need to be prepared to defend themselves. And in USA a lot of ordinary folks felt that there they are just minding their own business, and then evil Russia poses an existential threat to USA, and they need to defend themselves. Yes, the agitators are so very good at making the people believe that "we are good, but those others, they are threatening us simply because They are Evil, and therefore we need to Defend Ourselves!"

I'm not an expert in the details of the history of Middle East, but I'd guess that for local agitators operating there it should be pretty easy to find a lot of frustrated and angered people, who feel that The West hates them and wants to destroy them, and therefore they have the right to defence - and a revenge is a method of defence. "Let's go blow up some people in Paris, so that the West will learn a lesson and never ever mess with us again!".

Well, of course, it is not as simple as this. And generally speaking, maybe I'd better avoid topics like Mid-East politics and warfare, because they simply are so complicated and there are so much agitation all around, that it is not easy to talk about it in a cold rational analytical manner. And, also, there is little I can do about it, so why bother...

Ah, so, this is meant more as a metaphor. Just to demonstrate the dangerous tricks our mind can play on us, especially when agitated, or when threatened by external enemy (or a perceived external enemy). On the level of daily lives of individuals, all this might be much more simple - if someone points you with a gun and says "become my slave or I'll kill you", you know it is no kidding, and you probably have to take the appropriate action. But then, these metaphors easily become dangerous when applied to global politics - there is a danger of over-simplifying, danger of over-reacting, and a danger of just fuelling a negative loop where a retaliation strike is met with another retaliation strike and so on, escalating further.

So, I'm not saying that "even when threatened, we should never strike back". No, I'm more kind of a thinking that when there is a moment of calm, maybe we could use that to de-escalate further, to build mutual trust and to seek solutions which would reduce the likelihood of future conflicts. But, yeah, so far the mankind has not been so very good at this. United Nations, as an organization, was supposed to do that, but it has not been so very effective. Or at least, it could do better.

Oh well. If the civilization won't be completely destroyed, then maybe after 2000 years a future archaelogist will be digging the digital layers of history, finds this discussion and says: "OK, so already 2000 years ago they were speculating on the possibility of peace on earth. Hmm, maybe there has been a little advance since that, and maybe it will take yet another 2000 years until we see The Golden Rule more widely adopted in daily use..." And that, obviously, is something we can't know. So, back to agnosism =)

Ps. this individualism and collectivism theme is something I've been pondering about to write in more detail, some day. But, once again, I decide to postpone that. Huh. After this series of philosophical posts I'd like to return to more diary-like entries. =)