OT- F****** Idiots!..hahaha

[ONETINSOLDIER 2]

ok, now those who made a mistake and werent laughed at......

 

 

thought so,,

[Hiccup 0]

The pictures are gone.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

Let all those who have never made a mistake raise their hands.........

 

thought so.........

 

 

cheers

 

True...but seven (presumably) highly trained flight crew?...and £200M worth of aeroplane?...that is a bit more than spelling Humour without the second 'U'

(sorry American's...just a little Limey joke there!)

Edited May 14, 2009 by UK_Widowmaker

[JimAttrill 24]

Another Arab pilot story (true)

 

Saudi Arabian Air Force English Electric Lightning F6 at end of runway. Pilot whacks the throttles to max reheat to take off. One engine catches fire. Pilot opens canopy undoes straps and legs it. Fire goes out, aircraft then rolls off down the runway into the barrier. It took about 2 years to fix it. The fixing notably not done by arabs. Even the arab pilots wouldn't fly an aircraft that had been worked on by their own countrymen.

[Bullethead 12]

Another Arab pilot story (true)

 

To prevent this from turning into a locked thread, I will say this....

 

If the Arabs I met on the field of battle hadn't been stuck with the horrific export versions of already low-quality communist products, it would be them here today talking to you instead of me. And even with the above handicap, I still had to shoot most of them at least twice. They're tough, sneaky bastards and have my complete respect as warriors, whatever our differences on the so-called rules of war or other political issues. I just hope those who survived our fights remember me as a tough, sneaky bastard, too. As George C. Scott said when he was playing Patton, "I'll drink with [the Russian general], one SOB to another". Problem is, most Arabs don't drink, unless they trust their infidel drinking buddy not to snitch.

 

Still, I've broken bread with some guys who'd killed some of my buddies, and they broke bread with me even though I'd killed some of their kinfolks, and we both knew the score. Those were real "Josie Wales and Ten Bears" moments. I think it says something about humanity in general that you can't really understand another culture, or at least co-exist with them, until you've tried to kill each other......

Edited May 29, 2009 by Bullethead

[rabu 9]

To prevent this from turning into a locked thread, I will say this....

....snip....

 

Still, I've broken bread with some guys who'd killed some of my buddies, and they broke bread with me even though I'd killed some of their kinfolks, and we both knew the score. Those were real "Josie Wales and Ten Bears" moments. I think it says something about humanity in general that you can't really understand another culture, or at least co-exist with them, until you've tried to kill each other......

 

I would put a LOT more stress on, until you've tried to respect each other and get along; that might have prevented the, "tried to kill each other," in the first place? Obviously that hasn't worked, look at the mess we are in.

[Bullethead 12]

I would put a LOT more stress on, until you've tried to respect each other and get along; that might have prevented the, "tried to kill each other," in the first place? Obviously that hasn't worked, look at the mess we are in.

 

The great question: "Why can't we all just get along?" The answer: because we're humans. We're the product of a millions of years of monkeys and apes who lacked dominating size, huge teeth, lethal claws, and whatnot, but who had a few smarts. Using those, they bit, clawed, clubbed, stabbed, burned, and eventually shot their way to the top of the foodchain. We are the result of this long process, the ultimate apex predator the Earth's various ecosystems have ever produced. We're just animals like any others, and we're the most deadly ones ever to evolve. T. rex ain't got nothing on us.

 

So-called civilization only goes back a few thousand years. Our killer genes go back a few thousand times longer than that. How can anything "civilized" have any real effect on such deeply hard-wired programming? And anyway, it can be argued strongly that the primary product of "civilzation" is simply the ability to kill each other in a more organized and thorough manner, with each so-called advance in social organization creating merely a better way to destroy civilization itself.

 

Were it not for civilization, I would never have had to fight people on the other side of the world. But my civilization made me go there, because it had a beef with the civilization in that place, and that distant civilization sent its people out to meet me. I had no personal argument with anybody on the other side, nor they with me. And both of us were about as far removed from our respective civilizations, or anything worthy of being called "civilization", as it's possible to be in this day and age.

 

Under these conditions of literal and physical barbarity, in the midst of Hell on Earth, with civilization such a distant memory that it seems to be an hallucination from some long-ago binge, people can be people. They can see each other as fellow sufferers, kindred spirits, whatever you want to call it. Just as non-human predators arrange their territorial boundaries to avoid conflict, so can people under such situations, even though they know that their distant civilizations will eventually force them to resume the conflict.

 

AFAIK, there is no other set of circumstances within the civilized portions of earth that allows this to happen. Believe me, I've tried hard to find such a thing, because "war is Hell". Ask anybody who's seen it. But as long as people are ensconced within their culture or civilization, peer pressure or the imperatives of duty (backed up by penalties for nonperformance) preclude any true mutual attempt to cross the divide. It might make the person who perceives himself to be from the superior situation feel better about himself, but the other guy will probably perceive it as condescension.

 

Thus, to reach a real rapport with somebody, you have to be in a situation where the constraints of civilization are completely stripped away on both sides. And these days that's really only possible on the battlefield, and even then it has to be well away from prying eyes. So that's why I said people can't understand each other until they've tried to kill each other, because having orders to kill each other is the only reason why anybody would be in that situation.

 

EDIT: I'm definitely not saying this is a good thing, I'm just reporting my observations.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Bullethead

[RAF_Louvert 101]

Bullethead, that may be one of the most insightful posts I've read in a forum, (or anywhere alse for that matter), in a long, long time. If you aren't already doing so, you should consider writing your memoirs, and I am dead serious about that.

 

Salute to you Sir.

 

Lou

[Olham 164]

Good, that someone here said something other than Arab bashing; thanks, Bullet.

 

As for wars, I don't believe in enemies in general (some SS divisions would certainly be an exception).

I see "opponents" - an enemy would be someone I learnt to know as such. If I had been in some Jasta in WW1,

and Bullethead in an American Squadron, we might have met above the lines and fought.

But whoever would have brought the other down in the end - if we both had survived it, and would meet the

other so close, we could talk to him - then we would realise, we are not enemies - we were opponents.

 

Every being has it's Wolf - man, as the highest on the ladder, only has himself.

So it may be an evolutionary thing, that we measure our strengths that way, before we accept each other.

May be rather a man's (as opposite of 'woman') way though, as it was HIS evolutionary part.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

I agree... Bullet head has that proverbial "Way with Words"...And you really should think seriously about writing about your experiences m8

[rabu 9]

Very well written, BH, though I don't completely agree with you. And what you are bringing up is the long discussed debate about right and wrong, good and evil, the struggle to over come that animal part of us and rise above it.. touches all parts of our lives. The fact is that, looking at it religiously or other wise, when people make the effort to take care of everyone in their family and village and not let greed get in the way, they generally stay peaceful. When the survival of the fittest mentality takes over, as it seems to today in most of the world, you have the insane violence and wars that emerge from poverty, jealousy and hatred. And that situation has now spread to a real global village, as it were with escalation or annihilation the only answer on the human as primitive argument side.

 

I was in no way condemning you personally for going to war, I went too, just as most young men in all countries are conned into it and in many cases it has been necessary in order to prevent some "evil" power from taking away everything we have. But as humans who have "choice" there are those who still believe that working to prevent the causes of war, or to try to rectify them is the answer, as I do now. I hope our country in particular can take this route and set examples for other countries, along with teaching our children to move in that direction or I fear we are all doomed.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

Oh dear!..I knew this would happen!... I just start thinking what a great piece Bullethead has written..and along comes Rabu with a very well written piece as well, but taking a differing stance!.... Now what am I going to do?...as I am one of those unfortunate people who gets stuck right in the middle!!..... I would love to be able to say that the 'truth maybe somewhere in the middle'....but of course..it rarely is there either!

 

Think I need another Coffee..... I have never been to war, and am one of the lucky generation in the UK, of being about the only ones in our history, not to have been 'forced' to set forth with a Club, Sword or gun in their hands...for which I am eternaly grateful...and trust and hope that my 12 yr old son will also escape such horror!!

 

All I can foresee is the words of (Einstein was it?) please correct me if I'm wrong.... who said "I don't know what weapons will be used to fight WW3...But WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones"

 

The only part I would disagree with, is our being reffered to in the same sentence as 'Animals'

 

I don't know of any animals who would kill for pleasure, and torture and maim members of their own family.... and the world would be a truly green and pleasant land, without our ruination of it

Edited May 29, 2009 by UK_Widowmaker

[Bullethead 12]

The fact is that, looking at it religiously or other wise, when people make the effort to take care of everyone in their family and village and not let greed get in the way, they generally stay peaceful. When the survival of the fittest mentality takes over, as it seems to today in most of the world, you have the insane violence and wars that emerge from poverty, jealousy and hatred. And that situation has now spread to a real global village, as it were with escalation or annihilation the only answer on the human as primitive argument side.

 

There really isn't much, if any, evidence to support the idea that people are peaceful when society's largest groupings are families/tribes/villages. On the contrary, there's plenty of evidence that such groups fought each other quite savagely on a nearly constant basis (and still do, in those areas where they still exist). For instance, look at the "iceman", Oetzi or whatever they call him. He had the blood of several other guys splashed on him, a number of wounds apparently caused by knives inflicted at different times over several days prior to his death, and a fatal arrow shot in the back.

 

In short, the concept of the "peaceful savage" seems to be a myth created in the absence of evidence either way by late-1800s idealism. This myth became entrenched as the accepted wisdom for most of the 20th Century. Modern research, however, is showing it up. You might want to read stuff like War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage, by Lawrence H. Keeley, or Prehistoric Warfare in the American Southwest, by Steven A. LeBlanc.

 

The shocking thing about this research is that apparently about 25% of people back in the family/tribe/village days seem to have been killed in wars. These weren't wars like we have them today, which are highly organized, very intense, and of relatively short duration. Prehistoric wars were essentially perpetual and conducted by many small ambushes, raids, etc. It was this constant exposure to fighting over one's lifetime that resulted in the high rate overall rate of casualties.

 

You could say, therefore, that one benefit of civilization is reducing the overall casualty rate. Even though modern wars kill far more people, and have the potential to exterminate the species, in general the bulk of the population is no longer "on the firing line". Today, those who have "seen the elephant" are a tiny minority. PTSD was probably the normal condition of everbody alive for most of humanity's existence, but is now seen as a rare disorder afflicting only those unfortunate enough to have been in bad situations.

 

Anyway, I completely agree with you that wars are bad things and that it would be nice if they didn't exist. Unfortunately, it appears that people have always fought, and no doubt always will, regardless of the level of their civilization or lack thereof. It's just the way we are.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

And they are the exact photos that were removed by the Admins

[JRP1973 5]

And they are the exact photos that were removed by the Admins

 

 

In that that case I will remove them interesting story though

[Dagger 21]

While I wasn't the one who removed the pics, not sure who did as a matter of fact, I wanted to let yall know that keeping this civil is a good testiment to your values, So from me a BIG Thank You to yall.

[+hgbn 91]

While I wasn't the one who removed the pics, not sure who did as a matter of fact, I wanted to let yall know that keeping this civil is a good testiment to your values, So from me a BIG Thank You to yall.

 

I dont think the picture was remowed by someone at all. They were probably lost in the server transfer like some few posts did.

[FastCargo 412]

I dont think the picture was remowed by someone at all. They were probably lost in the server transfer like some few posts did.

 

I suspect you are correct. I saw the initial photos when they came out, and other than someone thinking they might have copyright (I don't think so), there wasn't anything I saw that would have given me pause.

 

Bullethead, you are WAAAY too intelligent to be a grunt...very well written sir.

 

Okay, my points here:

 

This quote...

 

The fact is that, looking at it religiously or other wise, when people make the effort to take care of everyone in their family and village and not let greed get in the way, they generally stay peaceful.

 

I think that though this is a nice ideal, very rarely will it last through the first time there is a competition for something that is scarce but necessary. An example is what if your child needed a particular cancer treatment, but your neighbor's child needed the same thing, and there was only so much that can go around...and there isn't enough. Just how far would you go to let your child live one more day? Now imagine its food, or water. Do we all die together, or do you do what you need to do to let your child live longer? Notice I haven't said anything about your own life or well being.

 

Civilization and civilized behavior is easy when resources are plentiful or at least adequate...or you don't know that there is more out there. And I hate to say it, but just in trivial things, we fail the civilized behavior test (sometimes called the prisoner's dilemma) every day. Don't believe me?

 

For anyone who drives in heavy traffic, where 3 lanes can neck down to 2, you know exactly what I'm talking about. Traffic would be faster overall if everyone blended into the remaining lanes early with minimal speed loss. But that's not what happens, is it? Instead, people bunch up at the 'neck' of the lane closure, because the folks in the closing lane can get that much more ahead if they go to the neck...which causes all the traffic that merged early to get slowed way down...causing a backup. Wasted fuel, wasted time due to slowing down and speeding back up.

 

Also, it can be argued that competition betters us as a species. And who decides what is considered greed or not? Certainly, events at either side of the spectrum are pretty easy to define as being disgustingly greedy vs being totally altruistic. But what about the big, grey area in the middle? Going back to the cancer treatment. Let's say person A makes decent money and is able to afford good health insurance to get treatment quickly and regularly for their child stricken with cancer. Person B on the other hand doesn't make much above minimum wage, and so must wait longer and/or get treatment less regularly than person A. Now, if you have a universal health care system, both person A and person B get the same treatment, which results in a downgrade for person A and an upgrade for person B. In addition, person A now has to pay more taxes...in effect, he pays more money for less care.

 

Is that fair to person A? Does an answer in the negative mean person B's child is worth less? (btw, this is not an excuse to start a debate on health care...just an example).

 

You get the idea...I will posulate again that civilization and civilized behavior are easy as long as there isn't competition for scarce resources.

 

This also comes down to the conflict of 'nature vs nurture'. What has a bigger influence on a person's behavior...how they are 'wired' or their enviroment/circumstances from birth to the present? The truth is somewhere in the middle...with cases of one directly affecting the other. We can sit here and make fun of the folks who did that to the A340, but how exactly were they brought up, from birth to the time of the accident? How many influences were out there that could have prevented this accident by just planting a seed of a different way of thinking?

 

I have a fairly unique perspective in that I've taught folks how to fly my aircraft from a VERY wide variety of backgrounds, from a Pakistani MiG-15 pilot to a Indian Su-30MKI pilot, from a Coast Guard C-130 pilot to a F-22 pilot, from a brand new Japanese student who doesn't have his wings yet, to a Space Shuttle pilot with thousands of hours. Universally, I've seem the more informed/read someone is, the more tolerant they seem to be of differing viewpoints. Note I didn't say smart, wealthy, or worldly...I've noticed that those qualities have less influence than you might think on viewing things from multiple perspectives. Also, that doesn't mean they don't have strong opinions on certain subjects (everyone has their 'buttons' or 'baggage') they just tend to not to be concerned if someone doesn't share their viewpoint on a particular subject...and can even be influenced with reasonable discourse.

 

Finally, shared experience counts for a lot in relating to other folks. 'I feel your pain' doesn't really mean dick unless you've been there and done that...especially in situations where you've 'faced the elephant'.

 

FC

[rabu 9]

There really isn't much, if any, evidence to support the idea that people are peaceful when society's largest groupings are families/tribes/villages. On the contrary, there's plenty of evidence that such groups fought each other quite savagely on a nearly constant basis (and still do, in those areas where they still exist). For instance, look at the "iceman", Oetzi or whatever they call him. He had the blood of several other guys splashed on him, a number of wounds apparently caused by knives inflicted at different times over several days prior to his death, and a fatal arrow shot in the back.

 

In short, the concept of the "peaceful savage" seems to be a myth created in the absence of evidence either way by late-1800s idealism. This myth became entrenched as the accepted wisdom for most of the 20th Century. Modern research, however, is showing it up. You might want to read stuff like War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage, by Lawrence H. Keeley, or Prehistoric Warfare in the American Southwest, by Steven A. LeBlanc.

 

The shocking thing about this research is that apparently about 25% of people back in the family/tribe/village days seem to have been killed in wars. These weren't wars like we have them today, which are highly organized, very intense, and of relatively short duration. Prehistoric wars were essentially perpetual and conducted by many small ambushes, raids, etc. It was this constant exposure to fighting over one's lifetime that resulted in the high rate overall rate of casualties.

 

You could say, therefore, that one benefit of civilization is reducing the overall casualty rate. Even though modern wars kill far more people, and have the potential to exterminate the species, in general the bulk of the population is no longer "on the firing line". Today, those who have "seen the elephant" are a tiny minority. PTSD was probably the normal condition of everbody alive for most of humanity's existence, but is now seen as a rare disorder afflicting only those unfortunate enough to have been in bad situations.

 

Anyway, I completely agree with you that wars are bad things and that it would be nice if they didn't exist. Unfortunately, it appears that people have always fought, and no doubt always will, regardless of the level of their civilization or lack thereof. It's just the way we are.

 

BH: Modern civilizations are a short time line in history and we have the power, now more then ever before to change. Because there is a long history of wars doesn't mean we can't move ahead, solve many of the problems in the world and create a global village that can live in relative harmony. There are, incidentally, cases of people living in very peaceful conditions when they are in situations where they didn't face the severe hardships of life. I can't quote studies right off hand, but there are examples of South Seas islands that were very peaceful under these conditions until Europeans came into their world and exploited them.

 

Tell the people in Iraq or other countries under siege that the bulk of the people are "no longer on the firing line." My point is that we have caused problems by our policy of stepping in and trying to profit in other countries at their expense instead of working with them to solve problems.

 

Would you rather take a strong arm approcah and blow away anyone that looks like a threat, believeing that there is no chance, that we are all just animals, or can you see that we must try to change things while still protecting ourselves because we are headding toward worse and worse results with the attitudes we have taken in the past?

[Offwatch 0]

The great question: "Why can't we all just get along?" The answer: because we're humans. We're the product of a millions of years of monkeys and apes who lacked dominating size, huge teeth, lethal claws, and whatnot, but who had a few smarts. Using those, they bit, clawed, clubbed, stabbed, burned, and eventually shot their way to the top of the foodchain. We are the result of this long process, the ultimate apex predator the Earth's various ecosystems have ever produced. We're just animals like any others, and we're the most deadly ones ever to evolve. T. rex ain't got nothing on us.

 

So-called civilization only goes back a few thousand years. Our killer genes go back a few thousand times longer than that. How can anything "civilized" have any real effect on such deeply hard-wired programming? And anyway, it can be argued strongly that the primary product of "civilzation" is simply the ability to kill each other in a more organized and thorough manner, with each so-called advance in social organization creating merely a better way to destroy civilization itself.

 

Were it not for civilization, I would never have had to fight people on the other side of the world. But my civilization made me go there, because it had a beef with the civilization in that place, and that distant civilization sent its people out to meet me. I had no personal argument with anybody on the other side, nor they with me. And both of us were about as far removed from our respective civilizations, or anything worthy of being called "civilization", as it's possible to be in this day and age.

 

Under these conditions of literal and physical barbarity, in the midst of Hell on Earth, with civilization such a distant memory that it seems to be an hallucination from some long-ago binge, people can be people. They can see each other as fellow sufferers, kindred spirits, whatever you want to call it. Just as non-human predators arrange their territorial boundaries to avoid conflict, so can people under such situations, even though they know that their distant civilizations will eventually force them to resume the conflict.

 

AFAIK, there is no other set of circumstances within the civilized portions of earth that allows this to happen. Believe me, I've tried hard to find such a thing, because "war is Hell". Ask anybody who's seen it. But as long as people are ensconced within their culture or civilization, peer pressure or the imperatives of duty (backed up by penalties for nonperformance) preclude any true mutual attempt to cross the divide. It might make the person who perceives himself to be from the superior situation feel better about himself, but the other guy will probably perceive it as condescension.

 

Thus, to reach a real rapport with somebody, you have to be in a situation where the constraints of civilization are completely stripped away on both sides. And these days that's really only possible on the battlefield, and even then it has to be well away from prying eyes. So that's why I said people can't understand each other until they've tried to kill each other, because having orders to kill each other is the only reason why anybody would be in that situation.

 

EDIT: I'm definitely not saying this is a good thing, I'm just reporting my observations.

 

 

There is a lot of Bull S**t and nonsense on the internet, but just occasionally you will read something that just cuts right to the Truth.

 

Well Done Bullethead

[Olham 164]

Think I understand, what you mean, Bullethead - even if it's not after everyone's taste.

What a waste you where to the artillery, man!

[Bullethead 12]

@FastCargo: Of course I was too smart to be a grunt. That's why I was in the artillery .

 

@Ohlam: I don't think I was a waste in the artillery. I did some of my best work ever with them. Too bad the whole situation was so regrettable...

 

Would you rather take a strong arm approcah and blow away anyone that looks like a threat, believeing that there is no chance, that we are all just animals, or can you see that we must try to change things while still protecting ourselves because we are headding toward worse and worse results with the attitudes we have taken in the past?

 

IMHO, there's very limited scope for changing attitudes. Except for a few troublemakers, everybody in the world just wants to live in peace, raise their families in relative comfort and security, etc. It's that way now, even in the most violent parts of the world, and I daresay it's always been that way. In fact, I think it's safe to say that the more violent the area you live in, the stronger your desire for peace.

 

Fighting isn't something to enter into lightly. You might not win, and you might get hurt badly even in victory, to the point that you still lose in the long run. This is something people have instinctively understood no doubt since the beginning of time, because almost every animal out there understands it as well. That's why so many of them just butt heads instead of really trying to kill each other when they fight. And that's why people have the whole spectrum of negotiation, argument, and saber-rattling prior to actual combat.

 

But the problem is, raising families necessarily means making babies, and doing so in relative comfort and security necessarily means that more of them grow up to have families of their own, and they'll want the same things for their kids. As long as there are enough resources to go around, everybody's happy and peaceful. But eventually, the demand on the critical resources for that time and place (from food to petroleum) always exceeds the supply, either by using it up or by running out of space to produce renewable things. When that happens, conflict is inevitable. In this regard, humans are no better or worse than any other animal on the planet. This is a law of nature, ultimately stemming from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which we are powerless to change, so you can't hold this against us .

 

What makes people worse than animals, however, is that we invent other causes for conflict. Maybe this is because we're products of such a long, long line of ancestors who had to fight constantly over resources that our genes expect us to have to fight over something periodically. Sometimes such causes are invented as tools to motivate the troops in a resource-driven survival conflict, but then live on the to trouble the world long after that conflict is resolved. But more often, or so it seems to me, such causes are invented by people far removed from the rigors of day-to-day survival. Such folks not only have the time for such pursuits, but lack an appreciation of the horrors of the conflicts they stir up, and as such are less averse to starting them. Or perhaps, they are otherwise insulated from it by some rationalization, such as, "you can't make an omellet without breaking eggs", or "the ends justify the means". Thus, we have everything from eco-terrorism to religious wars. And note that the more "civilized" a society is, the more such needless conflicts there are, and the worse they get.

 

Here, perhaps, is where you can change attitudes. But note that this, too, will often be just another "civilized", invented source of conflict. People always get set in their ways, and often to a degree that is irrational when viewed objectively. People cling to their ancient customs, their traditional ways of doing things, their ancestral religious beliefs, etc., despite whatever objective evidence (assuming there really is any) you show them that doing things differently would be better for them. History is full of millions of ordinary people who died for their beliefs or whatever other concept they thought was worth fighting for. Thus, to change their attitudes, you will have to be the aggressor and impose your will on them, doubtless killing some number in the process and leaving the survivors feeling oppressed and desiring revenge. IOW, you sow the seeds for future conflicts while at the same time losing, through your aggression, whatever moral high ground you thought you had when you went in.

 

The other option is to just leave things be, defending yourself if attacked but otherwise letting the other folks do as they please in their own part of the world. There are enough real things to fight over as it is without inventing new ones.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

Coffee anyone?

Edited May 30, 2009 by UK_Widowmaker

[Olham 164]

Hey, Widow; great idea ! - not coffee, really; but if you could get hold on some of those lovely

scones, served with clotted cream and raspberry jam, together with Cornish Cream Tea -

that would be LOVELY !!!

[rabu 9]

BH:

 

This one sentence in your post above seemed to sort of sum up your outlook and it's where I really disagree with you. You said,

"In this regard, humans are no better or worse than any other animal on the planet. This is a law of nature, ultimately stemming from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which we are powerless to change, so you can't hold this against us."

There is no proof that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to human nature and our world as thinking, compassion, or religion. It's just a theory from the 1800's having more to do with physics and energy, not humanity and humanism. I'm really not even sure why you brought it up, but you apparently would like to put the human race into the category of physics?

 

I'm not going to pursue this, as you obviously have your own beliefs and I have mine. To me, yours sound very negative though; I am a supporter of existentialism as expressed by Sartre and others.. I feel that what each of us does and even thinks has an effect on all around us, so pursuing the view that we are only violent animals, with the unchangeable attitude of killing and exploitation can only further that result if enough people are convinced that is the truth, while the opposite, a positive attitude is also possible if the majority comes to believe it in it and cares enough to try to change things for the better of all of us.. not just those with the greatest power at their disposal.

 

Good luck to you.