TED Conversations

DivineInterllect .

This conversation is closed.

It seems odd that Governments who send their people to war show concern for loss of life when catastrophe strikes.

I simply cannot make sense of this.

People dying in war, currently Afghanistan, should be treated with the same sensitivity as those in Japan. Clearly children and innocent people die in wars.

So I'm wondering if Governments 'really' care about people who died in Japan or Haiti and so on. I'm also wondering if this is not a ploy to gain favor, as if, Hey! we are sensitive individuals.

I believe they should express the same sensitivity. What are your thoughts?

Topics: consciousness war
Share:
  • thumb
    Mar 19 2011: governments are elected, or otherwise dependent on consent of people. so they have to play games.

    in either case, governments have to show strength and must be responsive. they should seem to "move mountains".

    in a war, it means killing and destroying fast. in a disaster, it means saving lives fast. the government does not care.
    • Mar 20 2011: Original comment:
      "That seems pretty sound"

      new comment:
      While it is true that governments are supposed to look responsive (else people feel powerless in global affairs), I believe "playing games" is not a good way to describe their fulfilling a psychological need. After all, for as much trouble as they have brought, where would the world be if the government of the US did not "play the game" of entering WWII to stop Hitler and end brutal Japanese expansion (forget Pearl Harbor, google "The Rape of Nanking")? Similarly, where would Haiti be without government aid (which you assert to have been little more than "gameplay") in response to the earthquake?
  • thumb

    E G 10+

    • 0
    Mar 18 2011: war...................... if we aren't soldiers we should stop talking about how is the war, how many innocent people die and so on.
  • Mar 17 2011: It is an issue of choice versus lack of choice.

    In war a nation willingly enters for a cause its citizens deem fit, the majority of those citizens sent off as soldiers are volunteers, and rules of war have been agreed upon that non-combatant casualties should be minimized. War also only strongly effects a single demographic (young males of "fighting age"). In war- a nation can also chose when "enough is enough", and to end the war. War also boosts the economy.

    In a natural disaster- there is no choice. People are killed regardless of belief or status, or age or sex. There are no rules, or treaties, or agreements- there is only destruction. This helplessness creates a strong fear of natural disasters in all people. Note that also- natural disasters destroy the economy.
    • thumb
      Mar 17 2011: There aren't really "rules" in war. Don't you know the saying that goes "all is fair in love and war"? The invading nation, which would be the United States in the case of both recent wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) doesn't and isn't abiding by any rules when their army is deployed.

      As for the wars boosting economies that's debatable, here's a great article on it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/jan/22/iraq.economy

      If anything, people dying in wars humans waged by choice (including military and civilians) should be treated with more sensitivity than those dying in disasters beyond our control as these deaths could have been avoided.
      • Mar 19 2011: I recognize that the rules of war are not always followed, however they are present. Often times those who violate them face criminal trials in the world court. Given also- that the country that wins the war rarely faces any consequences from the world court, it still stands that there are some manner of guidelines. This is more a psychologicalemotional reason than an actual one.

        I also would like to recognize that wars ultimately do not help the economy as much as people think they do (what with the often high levels of unemployment at the end of a war when production scales down and the workforce volume goes up). However most politicians thinking in short term economics (BAD), that is merely a reason for their *thinking* that war is not as bad as a natural disaster.

        You also mention deaths in disasters being beyond our control. While this is true to a certain degree, effective preparation and building codes (the 7.1 1989 earth quake had 60 deaths while the 8.3 1906 had 3000) can avoid a mounting death toll just as much as diplomacy can avoid battles.