This might be an argument that proves too much. Washington had many contemporaries who were deeply opposed to slavery. Even some slave owners, famously including Thomas Jefferson, were deeply ambivalent about the institution and publicly grappled with its immorality: “I weep for my country when I reflect that God is just.” So while yes our values are contingent upon our circumstances to a degree, there is still a great deal of moral variance between people with shared material conditions. At any stage of human history, some people have held values out of step with their sociopolitical firmament, for better or worse.
Note that with very few exceptions, modern environmentalists who are convinced that the use of fossil fuels is immoral still enjoy the benefits of their use. Jefferson said that maintaining the institution of slavery was like holding a wolf by the ears: you didn't like it, but you didn't dare let it go. There have always been people who understood the fundamental immorality of the systems that made their way of life possible, but rarely did they abandon that way of life.
I think that Yassine's target audience is probably the people who so loudly proclaim on social media that they would never, ever under any circumstance (including living in the past) do X (own slaves, steal, kill another human being).
This is what I call the well-fed wolf theory of civilization. Meme version: https://ibb.co/j4S2Lqw
Incidentally, I don't find these realizations particularly scary. Or, more precisely, I didn't find them scary 10 years ago when technology seemed to be moving ever forward, democracy seemed to be self-sustaining and the invisible hand of the market was doing its job. With all the hiccups and rifts that have opened up over the last decade, I'm getting less sure...
TL;DR most of the great rulers and conquerors of history were but glorified sociopaths.
Now, the West had a good run, because and to the extent it was able to keep sociopaths away from the levers of power (sociopaths being unablepr unwilling to use power for anything other than their own aggrandizememt), but that has come to an end. The Iron Law Of Oligarchy wins in the end. The difference is that the sociopaths now have infinitely more powerful tools available.
“Military service today may be seen as a low-status and distasteful profession — quite literally grunt work — but it used to be venerated deeply as a path to honor and a cornerstone of civic duty.”
I’m not sure whether to be offended that you’re punishing this on Memorial Day weekend, or just astonished at how ignorant your statement is. The military has lawyers, doctors, clerks, programmers, basically every kind of job. Warships are like small towns that have their own restaurant, recycling depot, power plant, dentist office, law office, machine shop, and the list goes on. There’s even “grunt work” like what I do working in a Manhattan skyscraper. Most of us in the military work in an office of some kind most of the time, and that’s true across all of the branches.
If your image of the military is just the infantry, then yes it is a lot of digging holes and extreme daily physical activity. But at least in the Army the combat forces are outnumbered by support troops at least 7 to 1 last time I checked. The infantry curiously has some of the highest IQ members who go on to achieve political success in civilian life, especially those who served as tier 1 operators (Navy Seals, Special Forces, etc), so it just doesn’t make sense to write that there is no public reward for military service. Although, one of the biggest reasons I’ve seen for people joining is to pay for college or to transition careers by getting paid to learn new skills. That’s more of a trade and less of a service, but everyone I know who wears a uniform has sacrificed something personal in relation to their service.
Americans are increasingly less and less patriotic, more selfish, and less grateful. Part of that relates to the presentism you wrote about in your article about the 1619 Project. Americans are more aware of past wrongs now and motivated mainly by a fight for what they consider to be just, and that fight tends to be domestic rather than international. If the youth these days consider the US to be fundamentally and irredeemably unjust then they won’t fight for its continued success unless things get markedly so bad that there’s no alternative. For better or for worse, the world we live in is defined by American hegemony and I’m personally proud to support that.
Tactical Procrastination's interpretation is correct, I was only commenting on how the field is perceived, namely that it's not viewed as an upper class profession. Obviously the military requires enormous competence to run.
My read was that hes saying Military service is generally seen as low status/ distasteful. Not that it is low status/distasteful.
Police/Military PR seems to have taken a hit in the last decade, specifically post George Floyd. This is what I took Yassine to mean.
I agree with the majority of your post re support staff (CAN Navy retired). It seems like no Civilian I ever met has any understanding of the military. Its all based on movies.
"For better or for worse, the world we live in is defined by American hegemony"
I agree. My country has about 1% of your Military power and our defence plan seems to be exist next to the US. Cool.
This might be an argument that proves too much. Washington had many contemporaries who were deeply opposed to slavery. Even some slave owners, famously including Thomas Jefferson, were deeply ambivalent about the institution and publicly grappled with its immorality: “I weep for my country when I reflect that God is just.” So while yes our values are contingent upon our circumstances to a degree, there is still a great deal of moral variance between people with shared material conditions. At any stage of human history, some people have held values out of step with their sociopolitical firmament, for better or worse.
Of course, evolution is not possible if a population is homogenous with the trait in question. You need variance.
Note that with very few exceptions, modern environmentalists who are convinced that the use of fossil fuels is immoral still enjoy the benefits of their use. Jefferson said that maintaining the institution of slavery was like holding a wolf by the ears: you didn't like it, but you didn't dare let it go. There have always been people who understood the fundamental immorality of the systems that made their way of life possible, but rarely did they abandon that way of life.
I think that Yassine's target audience is probably the people who so loudly proclaim on social media that they would never, ever under any circumstance (including living in the past) do X (own slaves, steal, kill another human being).
I think the point is that individual morality is conditioned by social forces but not determined by them.
This is what I call the well-fed wolf theory of civilization. Meme version: https://ibb.co/j4S2Lqw
Incidentally, I don't find these realizations particularly scary. Or, more precisely, I didn't find them scary 10 years ago when technology seemed to be moving ever forward, democracy seemed to be self-sustaining and the invisible hand of the market was doing its job. With all the hiccups and rifts that have opened up over the last decade, I'm getting less sure...
I can't recommend "Darwin's Cathedral" highly enough.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_Cathedral
Not read "The Secret of Our Success" either, but it sounds like a very similar thesis to "Sapiens."
Oh wow! I had no idea someone already wrote a book about this idea, thanks for the rec.
TL;DR most of the great rulers and conquerors of history were but glorified sociopaths.
Now, the West had a good run, because and to the extent it was able to keep sociopaths away from the levers of power (sociopaths being unablepr unwilling to use power for anything other than their own aggrandizememt), but that has come to an end. The Iron Law Of Oligarchy wins in the end. The difference is that the sociopaths now have infinitely more powerful tools available.
“Military service today may be seen as a low-status and distasteful profession — quite literally grunt work — but it used to be venerated deeply as a path to honor and a cornerstone of civic duty.”
I’m not sure whether to be offended that you’re punishing this on Memorial Day weekend, or just astonished at how ignorant your statement is. The military has lawyers, doctors, clerks, programmers, basically every kind of job. Warships are like small towns that have their own restaurant, recycling depot, power plant, dentist office, law office, machine shop, and the list goes on. There’s even “grunt work” like what I do working in a Manhattan skyscraper. Most of us in the military work in an office of some kind most of the time, and that’s true across all of the branches.
If your image of the military is just the infantry, then yes it is a lot of digging holes and extreme daily physical activity. But at least in the Army the combat forces are outnumbered by support troops at least 7 to 1 last time I checked. The infantry curiously has some of the highest IQ members who go on to achieve political success in civilian life, especially those who served as tier 1 operators (Navy Seals, Special Forces, etc), so it just doesn’t make sense to write that there is no public reward for military service. Although, one of the biggest reasons I’ve seen for people joining is to pay for college or to transition careers by getting paid to learn new skills. That’s more of a trade and less of a service, but everyone I know who wears a uniform has sacrificed something personal in relation to their service.
Americans are increasingly less and less patriotic, more selfish, and less grateful. Part of that relates to the presentism you wrote about in your article about the 1619 Project. Americans are more aware of past wrongs now and motivated mainly by a fight for what they consider to be just, and that fight tends to be domestic rather than international. If the youth these days consider the US to be fundamentally and irredeemably unjust then they won’t fight for its continued success unless things get markedly so bad that there’s no alternative. For better or for worse, the world we live in is defined by American hegemony and I’m personally proud to support that.
Tactical Procrastination's interpretation is correct, I was only commenting on how the field is perceived, namely that it's not viewed as an upper class profession. Obviously the military requires enormous competence to run.
I suspect your view about the status of the military profession is siloed.
My read was that hes saying Military service is generally seen as low status/ distasteful. Not that it is low status/distasteful.
Police/Military PR seems to have taken a hit in the last decade, specifically post George Floyd. This is what I took Yassine to mean.
I agree with the majority of your post re support staff (CAN Navy retired). It seems like no Civilian I ever met has any understanding of the military. Its all based on movies.
"For better or for worse, the world we live in is defined by American hegemony"
I agree. My country has about 1% of your Military power and our defence plan seems to be exist next to the US. Cool.
Thank you for your service.
Oh look, tone police.
Anyway, apologists for American Empire have long claimed that this was the price of peace, even if America is a bully.
That was blown up by the rapprochement of Saudi Arabia and Iran, all to howls of American outrage, and sponsored by China and Russia.
I think Samuel Clemens stated it slightly more cynically and on a personal level, but the Corn Pone Theory of Principles applies here also.