Advice from Star Trek (and Konrad Lorenz)

Remember that episode from the original Star Trek, where a planet waged its wars with computers? If an area was struck, not in reality but in the computer game, all the people in the actual area walked into extermination chambers and were killed. No mess, no splatter.

So okay, the killing part wasn't great advice. But the idea that planets or countries could have virtual wars is a good one. How about this:

Each country puts up a web site. Oh, wait. They already have such things. Okay, then countries try to attack other countries' web sites. Oh, wait. We see that all the time.

Well, let's move this activity into prime time. Let's make the game be all about attacking the web sites of "enemy" countries. No wars, and no deaths in this scenario. It's all about pride. My site is better than your site, and can withstand your attacks. So there!

Instead of arming for real wars, countries would devote their efforts to cracking code and "assaulting" the enemy site. If this was televised in some way, and hyped into a big cultural thing, it could catch on. You'd try to insult the other country with your stealthy code and by putting things on their web site to make them look stupid. (Yup, just like we already do. We just need to step up the coverage.) Countries would take great pride in their web sites and consider them beyond attack. They would posture and say nasty things. But no one would die or be harmed in any way.

In other words, let's take a page from Konrad Lorenz's book, "On Aggression". Animals settle their disputes largely through ceremonial "fights" where no one dies or is even badly hurt. In an old post about Lorenz's book, I suggested we use sports as the arena for solving global disagreements. But this could work, too. Heck, let's do both.

But whatever we do, let's stop waging actual wars. This is insanity, similar to doing nothing as climate change builds and builds and...oh, wait!

Another lesson from the geese

I've written here before about how geese handle their aggression in sensible ways. They provide lessons for humans who, as a species, do not handle aggression well at all. I saw one of these lessons unfold the other day.

There was Milo, the male leader of the flock, chasing a goose and biting its tail feathers (and the rear end itself). I've seen them do this countless times but this time seemed different, more intense. By the time I caught wind of it, Milo was already on the tail end (no pun intended) of his rampage. What I saw was a goose's rear end, sticking out of the bushes on the edge of the property. Milo was biting that rear end and honking at him/her fiercely.

All the while, the goose lay perfectly still. I thought maybe Milo had killed it and I was horrified, but then I noticed that the geese weren't bothered at all. It was a very different response than the one I saw when one of their babies was killed. The flock was totally cool with this event so I returned to what I was doing, which was sitting on the steps and hanging out with them. I like these guys.

Later on, I checked the goose in the bushes. Its body and tail end had not moved, but now its neck was giving its head a tour of the nearby leaves, eating this and that green delicacy. The goose remained like this for a very long time.

It was obvious that it was playing dead to resolve a difference between it and Milo. What a sensible routine! Milo got his aggressive rocks off by chasing and biting tail feathers. And the "victim" paid homage to Milo by making believe s/he was dead for a time. Then, all debts paid and emotional balance restored, the goose came out of the bushes and normal flock activities resumed.

Why can't humans deal with their aggressions in similarly sensible ways? These geese -- and other animals -- are teaching us important lessons but we're not paying attention. I urge everyone to read Konrad Lorentz's wise book, "On Aggression". It should be required reading in our insanely violent world. There are countless ways to deal with aggression -- and war doesn't have to be on the menu.

What is it with the world?

I keep thinking things can't get worse but with each new day, I'm proven wrong.

The chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Court said Wednesday he is investigating whether Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi provided Viagra-type drugs to Libyan soldiers to promote the rape of women during the current conflict.

It's quite a world, isn't it? And isn't it funny how it's always men doing the horrible things? (Or women pushed around by men.) I'll say it again: everyone on Earth and especially all the men need to read "On Aggression" by Konrad Lorenz. Until the lesson he reveals in this book is learned, we should expect a continuation of this kind of thing.

Useful forms of aggression

I'm getting a kick out of the aggression currently being exhibited by NFL players and managers. They're going at it like mad, dissing each other with real venom in the lead-up to the Super Bowl. It's fun.

But do you realize this form of "show aggression", exemplified both by hurling epithets at other teams and actual play on the field -- is a very helpful thing for men to do?

Sports provide a harmless outlet for the aggression that evolution built into us. That aggression is still with us, still a part of our lives though there is little call for it in modern life.

Without a receptacle for their aggression, many men spend their lives getting in trouble. This instinct rides around inside us (and by us, I mean men) although there are no longer any mastodons to bring down, or giant, predatory birds to chase. There is nothing constructive for aggression to do in modern life. And so it bursts out in emotional moments, bringing bloodshed, mayhem and sorrow to the world. This is mankind's greatest problem and it has dogged us for millennia.

Sports provide a way to channel this aggression into non-violent games or challenges. They are a proxy for our aggressive instincts, a remedy, a way out of a hole that even now pulls young people into gangs, men of all ages into jealousy and rage, jilted male suitors into murder, and politicians into endless wars.

These thoughts are flooding my mind lately because I reread "On Aggression" by Konrad Lorenz last month. Although written in the 1970s, it is an illuminating book with an urgent message for our times. Lorenz takes us on a tour of aggression in the "lower species", particularly fish, and does so in lovely prose reminiscent of Dawkins. He presents a panoramic view of how non-human creatures handle aggression, especially in situations where the aggressor (almost always a male) should not attack. So what do these animals do instead?

They engage in formal aggression meant only for show. This serves to release the aggression without endangering either "combatant". This is what modern men must learn to do. If we truly understood this principle and took steps to re-channel our aggression into acceptable venues, we might no longer find ourselves engaged in perpetual wars.

Politicians, above all, should be forced to read "On Aggression". And we should quiz them afterward on the subject matter -- and if they fail the test they should be removed from office. This is a principle that must be learned.

In the meantime, maybe they could watch some sports -- and think about the lessons they are seeing play out before their eyes. We don't always have to kill. There are other options.