The Real Problem With The World in General

Extremist Ideas Are Not a Good Thing

These are just some ruminations of my own on the sad state of affairs around the world. World-wide we have war, terrorist attacks, genocide or attempted genocide, civil wars, and general conflict in some form or another. There are times when the entire world seems bent on destruction.

What is at the root of all of this hate and discontent? What is it that causes an otherwise intelligent and graceful species capable of creating beautiful art, literature, science, and poetry to turn on itself in such a destructive and irrational manner? The answer can be found on a small scale right here at Joe User just by reading some of the artcles and ensuing discussion, particularly in the Political threads.

It doesn't take long to discover that many people hold to very extreme schools of thought and philosophy and are extremely agressive and irrational at times in defending or propogating their ideals. At times apparent open hatred can errupt between opposing extremes of thought with neither side acknowledging the other's thoughts or willing to concede on even the most reasonable and rational suggestions of a midle ground.

Sadly, many world leaders and people in power often also subscribe to these same extreme ways of thinking. But intead of fighting each other with words on a thread they utilize guns, bombs, and people's lives to propogate their extremes of thought. The cost of such extremist thought is high in natural resources, environmental damage, and most importantly human lives.

Entire groups of people are often targeted for destruction due to real or imagined political differences, religious differences, race, or other factors. This destruction may take the form of enforced extreme poverty, starvation, terrorist attacks, or open warfare. Examples of all of these are readily available world-wide and not restricted to any particular flavor of extremist ideals , race, nation, or political agenda.

The only thing all of these extremists have in common are that they are unreasonably extreme in their thought and philosophy, irrational in the defense and propogation of their ideas, totally dedicated to the idea that they are right and justified, are incapable of seeing or considering any middle ground, and they are human beings.

While human beings are the most intelligent creatures on our little planet, possessed of the ability for abstract thought and amazing creativity, we are also by far the single most agressive and destructive creature on our little planet. So much so that we turn on our own species in an attempt to destroy any members of our species that may be somewhat different in ideals or beliefs.

I find it interesting that the very thing that makes us the dominant species on the planet, our intellect, is also the thing that makes us the most danergous not only to other species and the planet itself, but to ourselves. Perhaps, in the end, we really aren't as intelligent as we would like to believe.
11,177 views 31 replies
Reply #1 Top
Very good article!!

I find it interesting that the very thing that makes us the dominant species on the planet, our intellect, is also the thing that makes us the most danergous not only to other species and the planet itself, but to ourselves. Perhaps, in the end, we really aren't as intelligent as we would like to believe.


So, what your conclusion eludes to is, with all our intellect and ability to be a force for beauty and good, we haven't learned how to beat the laws of balance and contrast.

Can the concepts of peace and compassion exist in a world where the concepts of chaos and apathy doesn't?
Reply #2 Top
So, what your conclusion eludes to is, with all our intellect and ability to be a force for beauty and good, we haven't learned how to beat the laws of balance and contrast.


Thanks for your comments. Very appreciated.

What I have alluded to here is that basically we are our own worst enemy (not a new idea) and that extremist thought is not only undesirable for a civilized people, but inherently dangerous to the human species in general. Also that irrationally stubborn stances in the name of "right" "left" or any other label for an extreme is both counter productive and destructive. As long as these extreme positions are maintained and accepted the entire human species is in peril.
Reply #3 Top
I think that some people become irrational, even dangerous when what they don't understand creates fear in them.
At the heart of the matter for some, if their ideas, beliefs, and thoughts aren't agreeded with, they become angry out of a
lack of self-confidence.
I've seen prime examples here at JU of the "flock of sheep" mentality. A few brave souls express themselves, honestly,
and boy oh boy the flock of sheep, agreeing with each other, actually verbally attack the brave ones. Geez.
Reply #4 Top
I think that some people become irrational, even dangerous when what they don't understand creates fear in them.

Yes, this is sometimes true but has little bearing on the article as presented. It isn't fear that is of primary concern, but extremity of thought and the acting on these extremes in an extreme manner.

At the heart of the matter for some, if their ideas, beliefs, and thoughts aren't agreeded with, they become angry out of a lack of self-confidence.


Again I agree with you but again it has no relevance to the article as presented. A lack of self-confidence could hardly be realistically considered at the root of most of the violence and hatred in the world today.

I've seen prime examples here at JU of the "flock of sheep" mentality. A few brave souls express themselves, honestly, and boy oh boy the flock of sheep, agreeing with each other, actually verbally attack the brave ones.


I'd like to examine this statement more closely as it is somewhat revealing. Firstly the reference to "flock of sheep" mentality. A statement meant to be derisive and to evoke an emotional response.

A few brave souls express themselves, honestly,


So these are the only people who express themselves honestly? Or you just happen to agree with what they say?

boy oh boy the flock of sheep, agreeing with each other, actually verbally attack the brave ones.


Again resorting to derisive commentary implying that anyone who disagrees with the "brave souls" are not only wrong but somehow not entitled to "express themselves honestly".

This is in a sense a sort of extremist mind-set whether you realize it or not. You pigeon hole certain people as "brave souls" and others as "sheep" in order to divide and classify those whom you agree with and those you don't without regard to their respective points or the acknowledgement that actually both groups are human beings with ideas of their own and the right to express them.

More often than not the real truth probably lies somewhere in between the two views in a debate.

Thank you for helping me to illustrate some of my points, I really appreciate it.
Reply #5 Top
Not picking on ya Trudy the statements were perfect for this.
Reply #6 Top
Not at all LW, I thought your statement stood pretty well on it's own. Appreciated.
Reply #7 Top
"creating beautiful art, literature, science, and poetry to turn on itself in such a destructive and irrational manner?"

It's amazing but wars actually spark advancements in all these things you mentioned. Countless artists, poets, and authors have been inspired by wars. Double edged sword? Maybe. I think a lot of the problems can be traced back to tribalism. We all unite against a common enemy.
Reply #8 Top
I think a lot of the problems can be traced back to tribalism. We all unite against a common enemy


I agree. Doesn't say much for our "progress" does it?
Reply #9 Top
Well, look at the Middle East conflict, it has been hundreds of years of Christians attacking Muslims and vise versa. It makes you question religion.
Reply #10 Top

While human beings are the most intelligent creatures on our little planet, possessed of the ability for abstract thought and amazing creativity, we are also by far the single most agressive and destructive creature on our little planet.

I see Parated2k picked up on the same statement.  My take is a bit different.

it is because we have the ability for abstract thought that we are the most destructive.  Dogs do not care if you are lab or spaniel.  You are male or female.  Only Man sees the difference.  And we then form opinions and rankings.  Once we find the lowest, we attack them.  Dogs just attack when threatened or hungry.  We do when we think we are the lowest in the social order.

Not really a surprising concept.  It is because we understand abstracts and must always aspire to be better than someone else.

But great article!  I am putting you on my must read list!

Reply #11 Top

It makes us all weird at times.

Where is the understatement button?

Reply #12 Top
Yes, this is sometimes true but has little bearing on the article as presented. It isn't fear that is of primary concern, but extremity of thought and the acting on these extremes in an extreme manner.


I think that extremity of thought and acting on it comes from fear, fear of the unknown, fear of anything different that
what we were taught, such as racial hatred ( born of fear). And I think my remark does have bearing on the article. The Emmett Till case comes to mind here for me, I'm so outraged by what happened to that child, and I think "fear" caused most of the hatred there resulting in horrific violence.

Again I agree with you but again it has no relevance to the article as presented.
A lack of self-confidence could hardly be realistically considered at the root of most of the violence and hatred in the world today


Perhaps lack of self-confidence isn't at the root of violence and hatred, yet I think it's definetly involved. I think a person that can't accept critizism, is lacking in confidence tends to have violent tendecies if only on a smaller scale.

I'd like to examine this statement more closely as it is somewhat revealing. Firstly the reference to "flock of sheep" mentality. A statement meant to be derisive and to evoke an emotional response.


You got me, at least part way, on this. I was feeling soooooo frustrated last night, I had answered a question on a forums
post, and I was the only one that answered yes.......I really felt like others wanted to say yes and didn't because so many had
already said no. I surely didn't mean to be derisive at all!
I've been poked fun at most of my life, and try to be sensitive to others feelings, and I messed up for sure. That was frustration coming out sideways. That's all. So I apologize to JU and it's posters.

This is in a sense a sort of extremist mind-set whether you realize it or not. You pigeon hole certain people as "brave souls" and others as "sheep" in order to divide and classify those whom you agree with and those you don't without regard to their respective points or the acknowledgement that actually both groups are human beings with ideas of their own and the right to express them.


Again, I felt and thought that since everyone but myself said no, that some were afraid to admit that they would do something if
they had the chance. I know and understand that everyone has their own ideas of their own and I respect that. It seemed odd to
me that sooo many would say no. If that was the case, then why is there the demand for these kind of shows as talked about in
last nights forum post? And I apologize to you for getting off the subject at hand

So these are the only people who express themselves honestly? Or you just happen to agree with what they say?

Again I was off subject...
my thoughts were on the previous night....sorry

This is in a sense a sort of extremist mind-set whether you realize it or not. You pigeon hole certain people as "brave souls" and others as "sheep" in order to divide and classify those whom you agree with and those you don't without regard to their respective points or the acknowledgement that actually both groups are human beings with ideas of their own and the right to express them.


You've given me alot to think about, much needed I see...sorry.
Thank you for helping me to illustrate some of my points, I really appreciate it


Head hanging down out of embarassment, Trudy exits. I really apologize.
Reply #13 Top

Reply By: TrudygolightlyPosted: Wednesday, May 04, 2005

Trudy, what is your blog name?  you know, trudy.joeuser.com... (something like that)

I want to make sure to read your stuff and have to enter it into my host file.  You did well, dont hang your head!  It was an excellant point counter point!

Reply #14 Top
Head hanging down out of embarassment, Trudy exits. I really apologize.


Trudy Trudy Trudy (sorry, couldn't resist),

No need to apologize at all. I'm glad you elaborated on your points, especially the first one. As I said, I wasn't trying to pick on you at all. I was really hoping you would expand on your statements, which you did and I appreciate it.

This is exactly what reasonable, rational discourse is all about and I applaude your elaboration and explanation in a reasonable fashion. You are welcome any time.

Well, look at the Middle East conflict, it has been hundreds of years of Christians attacking Muslims and vise versa. It makes you question religion.


To blame religion for the Middle East problems is to take a pretty superficial stance on the matter. There is far more to it than that. But it is a good example of the effects of extremist thought in action. Thanks.

And we then form opinions and rankings. Once we find the lowest, we attack them.


And this is in your opinion reasonable and rational behavior for an intelligent species? Chickens in a barnyard and wolves in the wild demonstrate this sort of behavior. It's hardly the kind of behavior one would expect from a so-called thinking species. And thanks.

Reply #15 Top
To blame religion for the Middle East problems is to take a pretty superficial stance on the matter. There is far more to it than that. But it is a good example of the effects of extremist thought in action. Thanks.


I agree there is more to it than that. I'm curious as to what your thoughts are on what else is currently ailing that region. You mind elaborating?
Reply #16 Top
I'm curious as to what your thoughts are on what else is currently ailing that region. You mind elaborating?


That would require a series of articles and I am hardly an expert on the subject. Suffice it to say that the gist of my original article here pretty well sums it up. Extremist ideas and behavior from more than one quarter.

I honestly believe than if humankind as a species doesn't move past this primitive thinking and behavior the species will eventually destroy itself.
Reply #17 Top

And this is in your opinion reasonable and rational behavior for an intelligent species? Chickens in a barnyard and wolves in the wild demonstrate this sort of behavior. It's hardly the kind of behavior one would expect from a so-called thinking species. And thanks.

No, it is not not reasonable or rational.  It is the truth.  It is humans being animals.  Nothing more. But since we have cognisence(SP), it is what happens.  I am not defending it.  I am explaining it.

Wolves, dogs et. al. attack the weakest.  They do not attack the perceived (I should have put that word in before) the lowest.  There is a BIG difference.

Thinking people dont attack the weakest, they attack the lessor.  That is why Japan, and germany lost last go round.  Perhaps if we were more animalistic, the agressor would not lose so many times.

But then when a pack of wolves tries to take on a wounded hunter, his 30-30 takes them out as well.  So weakest is not the end all either.

In the end, man has animal instincts and acts upon them.  But his instincts (check out moderatemans response on earthquakes) are not as good as animals.  But then animals instincts are not as good as real intelligence.

And that is what is not in evidence in a lot of humans.

Reply #18 Top

I honestly believe than if humankind as a species doesn't move past this primitive thinking and behavior the species will eventually destroy itself.

And that gets you the insightful!

No argument here.

Reply #19 Top
Dr. Guy: While I understand what you are saying, and do not entirely disagree with it, in the context of extremist thought it isn't really valid. Often, extremist thought is not related to "higher" or "lower" and certainly isn't instinctual. How do you feel your "truth" fits into the idea when two diametrically opposed political or religious groups wage war on each other for control of a piece of real estate?

In this case, each is attempting to gain political power over a region to solidify their particular political agenda which in true extremist fashion they believe is the only true, right way and are totally unwilling to see any middle ground.

I don't believe "instinct" can be the catch-all answer to this as it is far more complex but perhaps it is a piece of the problem.
Reply #20 Top
And that gets you the insightful!

No argument here.


Thanks!
Reply #21 Top
Dr. Guy: While I understand what you are saying, and do not entirely disagree with it, in the context of extremist thought it isn't really valid. Often, extremist thought is not related to "higher" or "lower" and certainly isn't instinctual. How do you feel your "truth" fits into the idea when two diametrically opposed political or religious groups wage war on each other for control of a piece of real estate?


It does go to the basic inferior/upterior thing. If I am better than you, You have no rights. it is not really political, religious or anything other than the human condition of needing to feel superior to someone. It all boils down to that.

The KKK was created from that. The PWT had to feel they were better than others (and in that they acknowledged that the other was equal). And so it is a concept unique to humans. Animals dont feel that. They fight and or lose. They prove their physical prowess.

Humans dont. They must prove it through artificial means. Hitler and Napolean (I dont know about stalin) were short men of limited physical ability. They proved their worth through the domination of others. Through the power of a non physical means. I will call it intelligence. Only in that they used the power of words. not might.

And that wont change. Ever.
Reply #22 Top
That would require a series of articles and I am hardly an expert on the subject. Suffice it to say that the gist of my original article here pretty well sums it up. Extremist ideas and behavior from more than one quarter.


Well, hopefully I'll see some articles in the future, I'll keep an eye out.
Reply #23 Top
And that wont change. Ever.


And that is one point upon which I sincerely hope you will eventually be proven wrong. But I won't hold my breath.

I understand what you're saying Dr. Guy. While I am still not convinced that "instinct" is the root of the problem, it is something to give serious thought. Thanks for the insightful comments.

Well, hopefully I'll see some articles in the future, I'll keep an eye out.


I'll give it some thought but I'm not sure I want to swim around in than can of worms. I am more a student of humanity than of politics although sometimes it is hard to seperate the two. I appreciate the comments.
Reply #24 Top
And that is one point upon which I sincerely hope you will eventually be proven wrong. But I won't hold my breath.


I am with you 100%. I dont like my predictions, I just make them.
Reply #25 Top
I'll give it some thought but I'm not sure I want to swim around in than can of worms. I am more a student of humanity than of politics although sometimes it is hard to seperate the two. I appreciate the comments.


Politics or Humanity. It does not matter. You have an insightful on this one. I wont hold you to that high a standard on all of them. Still, an insightful means you make one think. And you did here. I expect you will again.

Dont worry the topic. You give insight. We did not disagree, we only agreed in part. How is that for PC?

Welcome aboard again.