(no subject)
When reading the preface of a science fiction book, I came across the statement that, had everyone on the flights on 11 September 2001 had a six-inch hunting knife, things would have ended differently. This kind of statement annoys me, due to the armchair quarterbacking, and I will proceed to wax verbal, or even verbose, on this.
Firstly, the people on those flights were acting in accordance with what had thus far maximised survival: on a high-jacked plane, you keep your head down, don't draw attention to yourself, and don't attack the high-jackers. If they are in fact flying the plane, you want to avoid killing them unless you're sure someone else knows how to get the plane down in one piece. When high-jackers wanted the plane to fly to somewhere other than its destination, or prisoners to be released, or to make some other kind of political statement, survival became more likely if you kept a low profile. Now, we know that the high-jackers may intend to kill everyone by flying into a building, which means survival cannot be ensured by discretion, but the people on those flights didn't know that. It's ridiculous to expect that people would, even if they carried hunting knives, attack high-jackers and risk death if they thought the worst-case scenario was an unpleasant stop-over in Cuba.
Secondly, it's much harder, physically and psychologically, to kill people than you would think. It doesn't happen as fast as it does in the movies, either, unless you're a good sniper. Killing someone with a knife requires finding the vulnerable spots on the body (neck and chest) and knowing how to use the knife. Most people don't, in fact, know this, and getting your knife trapped between someone's ribs tends to be a bad idea if there's more than one opponent. Also, it is psychologically much harder to kill than we imagine. Most people do not want to kill other people - as Dave Grossman points out, "Based on his post-combat interviewa, [Brig. Gen.] Marshall concldued in his book Men Against Fire (1946, 1978) that only 15 to 20 percent of the individual riflemen in World War II fired their own weapons at an exposed enemy soldier." For more discussion of the ability to kill, and how it's taught, see www.killology.com. For the vast majority, killing has to be taught, especially if we're talking about killing at close range,
Thirdly, there is a much larger problem with the ideology expressed in that statement, and much more in the rest of the book: that the individual person has to protect him- or herself. The book is very adamant about the value of diversity, and the need for a space for those that are not peaceable and conformist. However, the world suggested is just as conformist, just in different ways.
In a world where everyone has to look out for themselves, there will still be people who have trouble defending themselves with physical violence: the elderly, children, pregnant women, the disabled. These will then have a choice between attaching themselves to a powerful protector or become casualties. For protection, one has to have something valuable to the protector - emotional or blood ties, skills, labour, sex, connections, money - with which to buy the protection. Those who need protection cannot risk having it withdrawn, and will thus make sure that they do not diverge from the protector's wishes. The world becomes a place of protectors, all of whom will have an ideal of being physically able, mentally able, and trained in violence, and of the protected, who will have to support this ideal in order to continue gaining protection.
In a world, on the other hand, where protection is done by a social institution (soldiers and police), the protected need have nothing valuable (leaving out that minorities are less likely to have good protection than others, which is a problem that need not be inherent in the system) with which to buy protection. It is extended by virtue of their requiring protection, not because they are worthy of it or can pay for it (again, ideally). In that kind of world, there will be other choices than protector/predator and protected/victim.
Perhaps, to those of us who would be protectors/predators, a world where that ensures power looks like a good option - especially if violence is the only skill you have. However, even though I belong to the protector class (physically and mentally able, trained in violence), I vastly prefer to live in a world where my comfortable old age does not depend on being able to pay a protector to make sure I am not preyed upon.
Firstly, the people on those flights were acting in accordance with what had thus far maximised survival: on a high-jacked plane, you keep your head down, don't draw attention to yourself, and don't attack the high-jackers. If they are in fact flying the plane, you want to avoid killing them unless you're sure someone else knows how to get the plane down in one piece. When high-jackers wanted the plane to fly to somewhere other than its destination, or prisoners to be released, or to make some other kind of political statement, survival became more likely if you kept a low profile. Now, we know that the high-jackers may intend to kill everyone by flying into a building, which means survival cannot be ensured by discretion, but the people on those flights didn't know that. It's ridiculous to expect that people would, even if they carried hunting knives, attack high-jackers and risk death if they thought the worst-case scenario was an unpleasant stop-over in Cuba.
Secondly, it's much harder, physically and psychologically, to kill people than you would think. It doesn't happen as fast as it does in the movies, either, unless you're a good sniper. Killing someone with a knife requires finding the vulnerable spots on the body (neck and chest) and knowing how to use the knife. Most people don't, in fact, know this, and getting your knife trapped between someone's ribs tends to be a bad idea if there's more than one opponent. Also, it is psychologically much harder to kill than we imagine. Most people do not want to kill other people - as Dave Grossman points out, "Based on his post-combat interviewa, [Brig. Gen.] Marshall concldued in his book Men Against Fire (1946, 1978) that only 15 to 20 percent of the individual riflemen in World War II fired their own weapons at an exposed enemy soldier." For more discussion of the ability to kill, and how it's taught, see www.killology.com. For the vast majority, killing has to be taught, especially if we're talking about killing at close range,
Thirdly, there is a much larger problem with the ideology expressed in that statement, and much more in the rest of the book: that the individual person has to protect him- or herself. The book is very adamant about the value of diversity, and the need for a space for those that are not peaceable and conformist. However, the world suggested is just as conformist, just in different ways.
In a world where everyone has to look out for themselves, there will still be people who have trouble defending themselves with physical violence: the elderly, children, pregnant women, the disabled. These will then have a choice between attaching themselves to a powerful protector or become casualties. For protection, one has to have something valuable to the protector - emotional or blood ties, skills, labour, sex, connections, money - with which to buy the protection. Those who need protection cannot risk having it withdrawn, and will thus make sure that they do not diverge from the protector's wishes. The world becomes a place of protectors, all of whom will have an ideal of being physically able, mentally able, and trained in violence, and of the protected, who will have to support this ideal in order to continue gaining protection.
In a world, on the other hand, where protection is done by a social institution (soldiers and police), the protected need have nothing valuable (leaving out that minorities are less likely to have good protection than others, which is a problem that need not be inherent in the system) with which to buy protection. It is extended by virtue of their requiring protection, not because they are worthy of it or can pay for it (again, ideally). In that kind of world, there will be other choices than protector/predator and protected/victim.
Perhaps, to those of us who would be protectors/predators, a world where that ensures power looks like a good option - especially if violence is the only skill you have. However, even though I belong to the protector class (physically and mentally able, trained in violence), I vastly prefer to live in a world where my comfortable old age does not depend on being able to pay a protector to make sure I am not preyed upon.