I can use a mobile phone and post messages on the internet. My parents have a vacuum cleaner that moves around and cleans floors by itself. People are being advised about the future that robots will have in society and about electric and driverless cars.

People have been told by government this is all good, it is part of a growing digital economy and is the way of the future.

But when it comes to foreign affairs, which also involves human lives, many governments, including Australia, take an alternative approach. There seems to be no real serious drive or change from past actions involving some type of violence or use of a military weapon.

http://vimeo.com/132212314

I see it as concerning, as on one hand one element of change is being gratefully embraced, (which is economic), but with another (involving human life), in this case foreign affairs, it is seen as too difficult to address with potential innovation, alternative or new ideas not being taken into consideration.

Why is there this difference in thought? I thought human life was priceless.

Nathan J

*...There seems to be no real serious drive or change from past actions involving some type of violence or use of a military weapon...*

We are living in a period of human history right now, of unprecedented peace.
This joyful fact though, does not mean we live in a period of no war.

There is always potential for war, but it is believed from research, the reason for global stability, is due to an increase in world trade, and the influence of Democracy.

War is what is termed, a zero sum game. There are no winners!

Nathan J
How do you define 'war' other than conflict between entities?

To summarize:

Hamas fires rockets at Israeli civilians,
Israel comes and clobbers Hamas,

Conclusion: It's all Israel's fault.

Nathan must be very young if he has hipster parents who have a vacuum cleaner than runs around on its own.

Shadow,

I see that following the Palestinian murder of a 35 year old rabbi the other day in the 'occupied' area, Israel intends to go in even harder on settlement. Is Muse's mate, Hal Colebatch, declared Netanyahu as one of only two Western leaders who is not a coward. Trump is the other one.

Dear Nathan,

«People have been told by government this is all good, it is part of a growing digital economy and is the way of the future.»

Where it is in fact very bad.

Those digital devices take away our dignity and autonomy. They actually spy on us and are prone to be taken over and controlled by hackers and other bad people who will use them to hurt us. The addiction and dependence on such filthy devices that cannot be produced independently even on a national level (how less so locally) mean that we have to bow down to the dictates of others who want to enslave us.

We were all doing fine in the second half of the 20th century, before the robots.

«Why is there this difference in thought? I thought human life was priceless.»

Where did you get this strange idea from?

[If that was indeed the case, then we would be fined and punished for not breeding as fast as we technically can, where slackers, starting at puberty, are sent off to compulsory reproduction farms]

Dear Nathan,

Global preparations for "defense" consumes an immense
and growing proportion of human financial, material
and personal resources, in a world that is already
overburdened with social and economic problems. We
can see that all over the world, hundreds of thousands
of scientists and engineers devote their skills in
planning new and more efficient ways for humans to kill
one another. Millions of workers labour to manufacture
instruments of death; and tens of millions of soldiers
train for combat - and some of them actually go to war.

From a moral and even an economic point of view, this
vast investment of human ingenuity and energy seems
a tragic waste.

For millennia, people have hoped for peace in their
time. The prospects for peace look more encouraging
however, once we recognise that war and peace are ends
of a continuum and the movement along this
continuum, in either direction is the result of social
processes that develop and change over time under the
influence of government policies and popular pressures.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Whenever two societies are in a state of hostility,
each tends to "demonize" the other - that is, to
attribute all manner of wickedness to the opposing side.
For example, Iranians tend to demonize Iraqis, and Iraqis
tend to demonize Iranians. Israelis tend to demonize
Palestinians and Palestinians tend to demonize Israelis.
What is often striking to outside observers is the
similarity of each side's images of the other. Even the
US and the earlier Soviet Regime both viewed their own
countries as peace-loving - and the other country as war-
mongering. Each nation believed the other was liable to
start a major war, and each claimed to build up its own
military defenses to forestall the other's aggression.

Each society claims that the other seeks world domination,
in the form of either communist "enslavement" or
capitalist "exploitation." Each country charges the other
with trying to enforce its political will on its immediate
neighbours. The US at that time saw the Soviet Union as
bullying Poland or Afghanistan, while the Soviet Union saw
the US as bullying Nicaragua or Grenada.

Each sees the other side as un-reasonable, untrustworthy,
and fundamentally treacherous. Yet, for all their strong
opinions, the citizens of each country are remarkably
uninformed about even the most basic facts regarding the
other country.

Relying on fragments of limited information from their
schools and mass media, the peoples of both countries think
of each other largely in terms of stereotypes.

Foxy,

I see that you are trying to be very impartial, but seldom are both sides equally virtuous, for example I would struggle to justify Hitler's side in WWII.

Similarly, trying to hold Israel to a strict interpretation of the Geneva convention whilst turning a blind eye to Hamas's many transgressions is blatant racism and hypocrisy.

Bismark developed a strategy to protect the fledgling Germany in that he developed the armed forces not strong enough to beat any of the other world powers, but strong enough to make any attack on Germany more costly than any potential gains.

While there still exist predatory nation states, the rest have to spend enough on defense to avoid being a target.

«Why is there this difference in thought? I thought human life was priceless.»

To try to address an issue to some level of satisfaction, I prefer a principle where one is passive in their approach.

This is very time consuming. One will need to have elements that include thought, patience, an ability to use words well to put forward a case and have good skills in terms of speech and body language.

One cannot purchase things like that. They are elements that develop within ones own self over time, if they are are able to develop or potentially come from birth if passed on from one generation to the next.

Life has a value well beyond finance. Unfortunately this attitude is not changing in the minds of many including those in government, when it comes to military action for example. In reality it has become a business.

With the documentary link I put, it shows some of the Israeli Governments yearly film footage (it keeps) of its military equipment, that is available to other governments to view, so they can see how the equipment works if they wish to purchase it. I have also been told about the financial benefits of the manufacturing of military submarines in Australia.

Unfortunately, the argument, that military action is still acceptable, is still bought by many. To me that argument is lifeless, it is not thought provoking, it is not inspiring or does not foster any sort of change or recognise the value of an individual human life.

The continued use of bombs (which are an item still used from over 100 years ago) where (if one falls upon you), the shards are so sharp, your arm, legs or head can be cut off or you can have metal left in your head permanently. This is where I would like someone to show some type of innovation, in a day an age of technological advancement to reduce the negative impacts of military action on others. Personally though I would rather people live within their own sphere and respect others as much as possible.