Isn’t that what people have always done? Maybe not explicitly. To explicitly make the split you’re speaking of would just help people to deny reality, and do what they need to do, albeit in highly suboptimal and destructive ways, while still holding on to incoherent moral codes that continue to harm them in other ways.
But it beats letting ourselves be wiped out. I worry about the fact that Western civilization is saying that an increasing number of rights must not be violated under any circumstances, at a time when we are facing an increasing number of existential risks. There are some things that we don’t let ourselves see, because seeing them would mean acknowledging that somebody’s rights will have to be violated.
For instance, plenty of people simultaneously believe that Israel must stay where it is, and that Israel must not commit genocide. Reality might accommodate them (eg., if we discover an alternative energy source that impoverishes the other middle eastern states). But I think it’s more likely that it won’t.
As technology advances, it takes fewer and fewer resources to wreak an equivalent amount of devastation. Soon, small groups of people will be able to annihilate nations. In most cultures, only a very small percentage of people would like to do so; trying to detect and control those individuals may be a workable strategy.
Israel, however, is near several cultures where most people would like to kill everyone in Israel (based on, among other things, public rejoicing instead of statements of regret when Israelis are killed for any reason, opinion polls showing that most people in some countries say they have positive opinions of Al Qaeda, and the success in popular elections of groups including Hezbollah and Hamas which have the destruction of Israel as part of their platform). The annihilation of Israel is not a goal for a few crazy individuals, but a mainstream cultural goal.
Demographic threat. Twenty-seven words: if Israel stays where it is, the growth of Arab citizenry will pose a threat to its existence as a Jewish state with a Jewish demographic majority.
I would consider that one of the better possible outcomes. As long as it leads to a conversion from a race-based state to a pluralistic society, rather than cattle cars and smokestacks.
It’s not really a race-based state, in the sense that one can’t arbitrarily choose one’s race, but under the Law of Return one can choose to convert to Judaism and instantly gain Israeli citizenship upon immigrating.
Isn’t that what people have always done? Maybe not explicitly. To explicitly make the split you’re speaking of would just help people to deny reality, and do what they need to do, albeit in highly suboptimal and destructive ways, while still holding on to incoherent moral codes that continue to harm them in other ways.
But it beats letting ourselves be wiped out. I worry about the fact that Western civilization is saying that an increasing number of rights must not be violated under any circumstances, at a time when we are facing an increasing number of existential risks. There are some things that we don’t let ourselves see, because seeing them would mean acknowledging that somebody’s rights will have to be violated.
For instance, plenty of people simultaneously believe that Israel must stay where it is, and that Israel must not commit genocide. Reality might accommodate them (eg., if we discover an alternative energy source that impoverishes the other middle eastern states). But I think it’s more likely that it won’t.
Interesting. Do you have 20 words on why these are mutually exclusive?
As technology advances, it takes fewer and fewer resources to wreak an equivalent amount of devastation. Soon, small groups of people will be able to annihilate nations. In most cultures, only a very small percentage of people would like to do so; trying to detect and control those individuals may be a workable strategy.
Israel, however, is near several cultures where most people would like to kill everyone in Israel (based on, among other things, public rejoicing instead of statements of regret when Israelis are killed for any reason, opinion polls showing that most people in some countries say they have positive opinions of Al Qaeda, and the success in popular elections of groups including Hezbollah and Hamas which have the destruction of Israel as part of their platform). The annihilation of Israel is not a goal for a few crazy individuals, but a mainstream cultural goal.
Demographic threat. Twenty-seven words: if Israel stays where it is, the growth of Arab citizenry will pose a threat to its existence as a Jewish state with a Jewish demographic majority.
I would consider that one of the better possible outcomes. As long as it leads to a conversion from a race-based state to a pluralistic society, rather than cattle cars and smokestacks.
It’s not really a race-based state, in the sense that one can’t arbitrarily choose one’s race, but under the Law of Return one can choose to convert to Judaism and instantly gain Israeli citizenship upon immigrating.