4 ms·

When I saw it, the thing that shocked me the most was that the people around me just didn't get it. I came out of the theatre (Manns Chinese in Hollywood) dumb

When I saw it, the thing that shocked me the most was that the people around me just didn't get it. I came out of the theatre (Manns Chinese in Hollywood) dumb-founded at the snippets of conversation I heard that revealed that, honestly, kids just didn't get that the target of the satire was them. I wasn't prepared for the enlightenment that this movie gave me. I came to realize that we were living in the exact world that the movie depicts - teenage morons controlled by masters of jingo'ism, sending their sons and daughters off to fight in totally senseless, pointless wars. It was shocking to me that, while I was able to see that it was a political statement masquerading as sci-fi, the kids only saw it as 'dumb sci-fi'. What was going on, I wondered to myself, that there are people who really just do not get it? That question was answered a few years afterwards, on 9/11. I'll never forget the wide-eyed enthusiasm of an 18-year old I met in the days afterwards, who was preparing his life to sign up and go to war. It reminded me precisely of that movie, and that frankly scared the hell out of me. I'm glad that this is getting some attention now, but I fear its too late. Too many kids grew up thinking that war was good for them and good for society, and it was the only option they had for employment, after all, so why not ..

fab13n 13y ago
Young homo sapiens males have a natural instinct for war, which can be expressed or not depending on circumstances. Going to war is the historical high risk + high reward option: you might be killed, but if you survive, you have a good shot at becoming richer, more powerful, and having offspring (both by becoming a desirable husband/son-in-law, and through the pervasive rapes in which victors indulged after a won battle). Founding a startup is a modern incarnation of that instinct, appealing mostly to the same young males demographic, albeit skewed toward those with very favored socio-economical backgrounds. So, the less hope people have to thrive the "regular" safe way, e.g. because of durable economical crisis and loss of upward social mobility, the more likely they are to respond well to jingoism. As a side-note, polygyny and jingoism are strongly correlated. Indeed for each man with several spouses, there are unwilling bachelors. They're willing to take the high-risk road and fight battles to become patriarchs; as a bonus, war casualties increase the female/male ratio. I recommend reading The Red Queen if you're interested by all aspects of mating strategies and risk acceptance, not limited to human beings nor even whole organisms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Queen:_Sex_and_the_Evolution_of_Human_Nature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Queen:_Sex_and_the_Evol...).
- fit2rule 13y ago
  I think these sorts of glib 'truisms' are used to justify an awful lot of bad behaviour. Just ask the feminists if they think its an acceptable justification for young male misogyny .. its not going to help anyone if we justify continued transgression against our species with "natural law requires this 'natural' behaviour".
  - fab13n 13y ago
    Beware not to get confused between explanation and justification. Whenever a social issue is worth struggling for, that's precisely because of the mismatch between how things are and how they ought to be, it's essential to have a fair assessment of things as they are. Those who suffer from mental confusion between how things are and how they ought to be, tend at best to be ineffective, and often to discredit the cause they wish to defend. As you hinted, some variants of feminism are confronted with such issues. Another kind of confusion to avoid is between "natural" and "legitimate". "Natural" means "spontaneous", it's almost the exact opposite of "civilized". Describing something as natural is certainly not justifying it. Some forms of populisms abuse the natural/legitimate confusion to manipulate masses, but that's no reasoning, let alone sound reasoning.

fab13n 13y ago

Young homo sapiens males have a natural instinct for war, which can be expressed or not depending on circumstances. Going to war is the historical high risk + high reward option: you might be killed, but if you survive, you have a good shot at becoming richer, more powerful, and having offspring (both by becoming a desirable husband/son-in-law, and through the pervasive rapes in which victors indulged after a won battle). Founding a startup is a modern incarnation of that instinct, appealing mostly to the same young males demographic, albeit skewed toward those with very favored socio-economical backgrounds. So, the less hope people have to thrive the "regular" safe way, e.g. because of durable economical crisis and loss of upward social mobility, the more likely they are to respond well to jingoism. As a side-note, polygyny and jingoism are strongly correlated. Indeed for each man with several spouses, there are unwilling bachelors. They're willing to take the high-risk road and fight battles to become patriarchs; as a bonus, war casualties increase the female/male ratio. I recommend reading The Red Queen if you're interested by all aspects of mating strategies and risk acceptance, not limited to human beings nor even whole organisms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Queen:_Sex_and_the_Evolution_of_Human_Nature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Queen:_Sex_and_the_Evol...).

fit2rule 13y ago
I think these sorts of glib 'truisms' are used to justify an awful lot of bad behaviour. Just ask the feminists if they think its an acceptable justification for young male misogyny .. its not going to help anyone if we justify continued transgression against our species with "natural law requires this 'natural' behaviour".
- fab13n 13y ago
  Beware not to get confused between explanation and justification. Whenever a social issue is worth struggling for, that's precisely because of the mismatch between how things are and how they ought to be, it's essential to have a fair assessment of things as they are. Those who suffer from mental confusion between how things are and how they ought to be, tend at best to be ineffective, and often to discredit the cause they wish to defend. As you hinted, some variants of feminism are confronted with such issues. Another kind of confusion to avoid is between "natural" and "legitimate". "Natural" means "spontaneous", it's almost the exact opposite of "civilized". Describing something as natural is certainly not justifying it. Some forms of populisms abuse the natural/legitimate confusion to manipulate masses, but that's no reasoning, let alone sound reasoning.