The War Within - Between Good and Evil - Bheemeswara Challa (psychology books to read TXT) 📗

of Murderous Weapons and ‘Murderous Martyrdom’
In practical terms, what we call a ‘problem’ is what stands between life and death.
Without life there can be no problem or a personification of a problem. It is
being perceived as the easiest and the most ‘efficient’ way to resolve issues and
solve problems. Until perhaps even a century ago ‘taking life’, one’s own or an
other’s, was usually under extreme provocation or desperation, and when all
other options were shut, or appeared to be shut. Taking life, one’s own or of an
other, always a ‘probable possibility’, is now alarmingly a ‘possible probability’;
no longer off-the-table or unthinkable for thousands of perfectly normal people.
New phrases have come into play like suicide bomber, murderous martyrdom,
human bomb, ethnic cleansing, collateral damage, drone deaths,46 and new
and sinister associations have sprouted; mass murder is now called a ‘just war’;
torture is called eliciting ‘truth’ or ‘intensive interrogation techniques’, and ‘rectal
rehydration as a means of behavior control’ of suspected terrorists. Not only
are new ‘techniques’ of killing and torture being invented, but some of these,
like the drones or unmanned aerial vehicles, are brazenly being called, sans any
shame, ‘moral’,47 by those who authorize their launch. The person who makes
such a description is generally considered a ‘devout’ Catholic who opposes the
The War Within—Between Good and Evil
524
death penalty! The irony is that he truly is a ‘good’ Catholic and he truly believed
in the morality of what he did, much like Adolf Eichmann and many others of
that ilk! Such is the devilish ingenuity of the human mind. But it is but a myth
that these killings are ‘precise’, or that drones kill only the ‘terrorists’. According
to one report, drones kill 28 innocent people for every ‘bad guy’.48 We are now
told that new micro-aerial vehicles known as CICADAs,49 which are actually
micro-drones, are being developed by the Pentagon. These can be deployed from
military aircraft at altitudes close to 50,000 feet and still fit in the palm of your
hand, and they can possibly fly into a house and kill the target. The justification is
that they do not entail any human casualties on the attacking or drone-launching
side. Should we call that ‘moral’ or callous? This is a case in point that tells a lot
about modern man’s mindset, our endless ability to find moral explanations and
ethical justifications for all the trivial and terrible things we do as a part of ‘doing
our job’, or rendering ‘public service’.
Morality and ‘Gamification’ of Violence and War
It is a cliché, but true to say technology is a double-edged weapon. It can do both
good and bad. The ‘bad’ is easier to identify; it is mainly military technology, even
granting that many of these have had civilian impact. It was military technology
that, through the machine gun, first automated killing in the 19th century, and
which now is giving us lethal autonomous robots (LARs) that can operate without
human intervention. Human dignity is also at stake here. LARs are another step
towards a dehumanizing trend in warfare. It is not individual bravery or even
human numbers that are decisive; it is technological superiority. Some ‘realists’
argue that killing from a distance and engaging targets as mere objects is but a
normal evolution in the advancing technology of war, which is being described as
the ‘gamification’50 of violence and war. Some warn of the impending tsunami of
robots that strive to look and act eerily human. Humans now can kill thousands
without any human involvement, ridding us of unpleasant sensations like regret
and remorse. Although we associate war weaponry with sophisticated and lethal
weapons such as missiles, nuclear bombs and drones, it all began with the use of
sharpened stones about two million years ago. It has steadily advanced and took
a quantum leap with the fusion of indigenous technology and modern science.
From Death to Immortality
525
With the advent of the ‘atomic age’ and advances in bio- and nanotechnologies,
military technology has enabled man not only to cripple his own kind but
potentially also Planet Earth itself. Scary, ‘Star Wars’ kind of weapons are being
developed with large-scale diversion of skills and resources that could, if properly
channeled, do immense good to the world. ‘Immense good’ could also accrue to
the environment if we can curb our lust for war. Just to deter or defeat, or make
life more difficult for the ‘enemy’, we don’t mind or care if the environment is
imperiled. Indeed, throughout history, the environment has been a silent victim
of human conflict. In the 5th century BCE, the retreating Scythians poisoned
water wells in an effort to slow the advancing Persian army. Roman troops razed
the city of Carthage in 146 BCE, and poisoned the surrounding soil with salt to
prevent its future fertilization. The American Civil War in the 19th century saw
the widespread implementation of ‘scorched earth’ policies. During the Vietnam
War, the United States implemented Operation Ranch Hand to devastating effect,
to destroy vegetation used by the enemy for cover and sustenance, through the
use of chemicals such as Agent Orange. Attempts were also made to deliberately
modify the environment to create floods along vital supply routes utilized by the
North Vietnamese forces. The existing rules under international humanitarian
law, international environmental law, and international criminal law, purporting
to limit deliberate environmental destruction, have largely been ineffective and
inappropriate. The impact of environmental destruction has paled when measured
against perceived military advantages. The United Nations International Law
Commission is currently looking at this issue in an attempt to establish the
relevant applicable principles.51
Military technology now is at the frontline of the march towards selfdetermining
machines. Its evolution is producing an extraordinary variety of
species. The Sand Flea, an 11-pound robot that drives like a radio-controlled
car on flat terrain, can jump 30 feet into the air to overcome obstacles; it can
leap through a window or onto a roof, filming all the while. It then rolls along
on wheels until it needs to jump again. RiSE, a six-legged robo-cockroach, can
climb walls. LS3, a dog-like robot, trots behind a human over rough terrain,
carrying up to 180 kg of supplies. SUGV, a briefcase-sized robot, can identify a
man in a crowd and follow him. There is a flying surveillance drone the weight
of a wedding ring. And there is a robot that can carry 2.7 tonnes of bombs.52
The War Within—Between Good and Evil
526
These machines have turned mass or targeted ‘killing’ into a relatively low-risk or
no-risk affair. While they might inflict what is euphemistically called collateral
damage—that is killing of non-combatants and civilians who have nothing to
do with the decision to wage the war—the side that deploys such weapons does
not incur any ‘human’ causalities, insulating the ‘war-wagers’ from any domestic
pressure. Their people, or public, care for only one thing; they don’t want their
‘sons’ to be put in the harm’s way.
Mrityor ma amritam gamaya: From Death to Immortality
All religions and scriptures accord centrality to matters of death. Indeed, it is death
that makes them deathless. The famous Shanti mantra in the Brihadaranyaka
Upanishad says, inter alia, Mrityor ma amritam gamaya—lead me from ‘death
to immortality’. The Isha Upanishad says: “May my life merge in the Immortal,
when my body is reduced to ashes. O Mind, meditate on the eternal Brahman.
Remember the deeds of the past. Remember, O Mind, remember”. The Old
Testament says: “The dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to
God who gave it”.53 The Bible says that God alone possesses immortality, and in
Islam, Allah alone can bestow immortality. An Anglican funeral liturgy which is
recited at the gravesite says “In the midst of life we are in death: of whom may
we seek for succor, but of thee, O Lord, who for our sins art justly displeased?…
Earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust”.54 We must not forget that gods
always punished man for trying to ‘become like one of them’, and man was
banished from Eden perhaps not for his divine disobedience, but to preempt him
from seeking immortality.55
Death has been the final frontier, the ultimate conquest, the true challenge
to human intelligence. Ever since man came face to face with is called ‘mortality
salience’, that is, awareness of his eventual death, man’s attitude towards, and
relationship with death has radically changed, including his relationship with
his fellow-men and nature and God. It has also affected man’s moral sense. It
has, on the one hand, strengthened people’s connection with their in-groups
and on the other hand led people to feel more inclined to punish minor moral
transgressions.56 The means have changed, as also the destination but the almost
visceral revulsion of death and quest to conquer it remain. All that scriptures have
From Death to Immortality
527
told us and science tells us have made little impact. Why death is ‘bad’ and why
we fear, dread, and loathe death is inexplicable. We do not dread similar, albeit
less draconian, situations. We do not fear, indeed long for, sleep, which in many
ways is similar. We do not resist, even if we do not welcome, other passages and
transitions such as youth to old age. We hate pain but we detest death, although
it relieves us of a lot of pain, physical or mental or psychological.
The very meaning and aim of immortality have changed; from going
‘beyond the body’ to retaining and augmenting the body. The means have changed
from spiritual to scientific. We are now told that, in another decade and a half,
we might have the option to ‘keep repairing our current body or move into a new
one’. As the article predicts, “[In the year 2032]… the growing of ‘blank’ bodies
has become all the rage, and by using your own genetic material, body farmers
can even recreate your own face at age 20”.57,58 In the process, the very ‘logic and
language’ of death have profoundly changed. In death, the apparent end of what
we know as life, nature confronts man with the most daunting dilemma. Despite
its unpredictable imminence, few are prepared and most would say, like the hero
in Philip Roth’s novel Everyman, “O Death; thou comest when I least had thee
in mind”. Death might become ‘optional’, but it will still be the cessation of life.
But the causes that culminate in death have changed, encompassing all the way
from involuntary bodily decay and dissolution, to voluntary embrace of death.
There is a growing convergence of suicide and homicide, some in the name of
love and some in the name of religion, and some just for the ‘thrill’ of it. ‘Killing’
has come to be viewed as the ultimate test of faith and a revered rite of passage
into martyrdom, and a hallowed highway to heaven. Birth, for some time has
been optional, but now even death looms as a choice. While scriptures profess
that death is no different from being a phase and part of life, science posits that
death is the opposite and antithesis to life. We are living at a time when human
power can ‘fix’ anything, even a broken heart, and regain anything we might
lose, even youth and vaginal virginity. Now we are being reassured that even
‘lost life’ can be restored. While scriptures say that the way to be deathless is by
overcoming desire, science says deathlessness is just another desire to be satiated,
just another ‘disease’ to be cured. As man has entrenched himself on earth and
assumed ascendancy over all other forms of life, a profound change in the place
and perception of death in the context of life has taken hold. In no other aspect
The War Within—Between Good and Evil
528
of life is the gap between scripture and science as wide as it is in regard to death.
A centrality in human thought has long been that birth and death are inseparable
in the continuum of life, of cause and effect. Man has always recognized, but
not accepted, that ‘centrality’, and has turned either to the divine, and when it
seemed impervious to his pleas, to science. If science prevails, man will then be
able to make life at will and keep ‘death’ at bay, as if it were ‘on call’, another toy
or ploy to play with. The idea is that if ‘eternal life’ becomes too drab and devoid
of delight, then we can summon death to deliver us.
Man has always entertained two dreams: to live as the gods do—eternally
and in bliss; and, even if he does not know what to do with a single dreary
day, to ‘go on living’, forever and ever; to live for its own sake, not to achieve
something or anything. What used to be the stuff of mythology, legends,
epics, and fantasy fiction, we are being told, could be a reality soon,