Cultural transmutations

From the

ice age to the age of innovation

Michael Anbar Ph.D.

We have come a long way from being cavemen in the ice age, when survival depended on social skills at the family level and on the ability of transfer acquired knowledge by word of mouth or by imitation. We passed through many stages when survival and progress depended on either amiable or hostile interactions between clans and tribes, and later between nations and empires, each with its own aspirations and cultural characteristics. During this historical period, which lasted for millennia, new tribes were born and passed away, and so did nations and empires.   We now live in the age of innovation, in a social structure with unprecedented ability to understand and control nature, invent new technologies, accumulate and transfer knowledge, and envision new horizons never imagined before. What made our present Western culture unique -- in its rate of progress and in its broad scope of possibilities -- has been a social structure with unmatched freedom of the individual to think, construe, innovate and compete with other individuals who share the same freedom. This novel social structure of Western civilization has been adopted by different cultures in different parts of the world. Unlike any society before ours, we manifest our culture, including its social structure, technological achievements and political power at the global level.  Our political power is a combination of enormous economic potential and unmatched military strength.  Both of these, which are the result of innovative ability combined with competitiveness, have been demonstrated in the current ‘Iraqi Freedom” operation. 

Many societies around the world have not achieved our level of prosperity and creativity. Some societies still struggle to maintain bare sustenance while others enjoy a parasitic life, depending on our affluence and creativity, contributing minimally to general human welfare.  Instead of learning from our experience and constructively emulate our freedom of the individual, some of those societies exert their energies in a destructive manner, hoping to eradicate our society and bring all of humanity down to their level of stagnant misery. Paramount among those stagnant yet militant societies are most Islamic nations that are driven by a culture bound by fatalism combined with intolerance of other cultures and religions. The 9/11 atrocity perpetrated by militant Islamists is just one example of many of this destructive cultural manifestation. However, based on historical experience and rational political analysis, Islamic religion and culture are bound to change or be defeated and assimilated.  Our overwhelming superiority in technology and resourcefulness guarantee our durability in spite of some painful blows by envious and hateful enemies. 

Another major global change has been the ease of flow of visual information and disinformation throughout the world, which has truly become a “global village.”  People can follow in real-time remote events and be deeply influenced by what they see, far more than by what they hear or read. But the views shown depend on the substantial manipulative power of the reporters.  Although most viewers have the choice of the information channel they wish to use, there are subtle ways to influence that choice. The end goal of each of the media is to form a certain public opinion that will eventually affect the political choices of their audience. These choices are, in turn, based on the psychological makeup, ideology and preconceived ideas of the audience.

Notwithstanding censorship and bias, the public in the less developed countries, including the Islamic nations, is exposed to our culture and sees the enormous gap between our achievements and theirs.  On one hand this enhances the envy and animosity, but on the other it shatters their unfounded conviction in the superiority of their religion and way of life. The Islamic clergy is evidently threatened by this cultural onslaught and spearheads the violent counterattack on our society and culture.  Since the warfare technology of Islamic countries is dramatically inferior to ours, as has been demonstrated in Afghanistan and Iraq, the militant Muslims use terrorism as their method of warfare, as has been shown in the 9/11 atrocity. This outrage has been preceded and then followed by many other indiscriminate deadly terrorist attacks on civilians all over the world. While terror may have a demoralizing effect on the immediate surroundings, its full effect depends on the dissemination of the atrocity. Modern worldwide communication makes terrorism an effective political tool and encourages its perpetuation. The coverage frightens some and enrages others, most importantly it sends a message to the ideological and financial supporters of the terrorists about the “success” that has been achieved (remember the mobs dancing in the streets of Ramallah on 9/11). Take away the media worldwide coverage and there would be little point to murder innocent civilians.

New technology follows new ideas while most ideas lag behind technology. This apparent paradox stems from the fact that it is easier to replace old technologies by new ones than to substitute a preconceive idea with a new notion.  We witnessed this recently in the vocal criticism of US policy to eliminate terrorism by all possible means, including targeted assassinations. This mode of operation negates the ingrained notion of due process in a court of law. However, as was demonstrated in the war against terrorism in Israel, it is impractical and often impossible to defuse “ticking bombs” in any other way. Moreover, modern technologies of surveillance and precision targeting made such actions possible as demonstrated in Yemen, Baghdad and in the Gaza Strip.  If killing a single potential murderer prevents the death of many innocent civilians, that killing becomes morally justified, while waiting for an atrocity to take place is morally wrong. The passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania made this momentous judgment and “took the law into their hands” without giving attorneys for the hijackers a chance to claim that their clients actually were on a peaceful mission.

The war in Iraq is another example – a preemptive strike against a potential enemy has been considered unethical; the enemy was supposed to be given the chance to hit us first before we respond to an unambiguously flagrant aggressor. However, when the enemy’s technological capacity can make that first belligerent strike devastating or even existential, while our military technology can decisively eliminate that threat, a preemptive strike becomes fully justified.  This has been shown in the Six Days War and in Operation Iraqi Freedom. In modern violent conflicts, unlike in classical warfare, the first blow may be decisive.

In brief, our global technological advances are changing the basic ethics of international conflict.  The most important change is the ability to defeat an enemy without destroying its economic base and without devastating its civilian population, as was done in previous wars including WWII.  The “Neutron bomb” and “x-ray bomb” which have never been deployed join the hydrogen bomb in the trashcan of warfare devices.  These brute force mass killers of people have given way to high precision targeted weaponry. Atom bombs, which have lost their strategic and tactical value in modern warfare, have become a tool of blackmail in the hands of rogue nations (e.g., North Korea, and in the future Iran, Syria and Libya) and a gruesome threat to life and property when in possession of a terrorist organization. The same is true of the intrinsically indiscriminating, uncontrollable biological warfare agents.

There is another important consequence of global visual communication – it changed the nature of psychological warfare. Also in previous military conflicts it was important to demoralize the civilian population of the enemy. This practice is quite ancient, as can be seen in the speech of the Assyrian general Rabshake to the people of Jerusalem (King II 18, 17-37) when he urged them to defy their king and surrender, bragging about the superiority of the Assyrian deities over the Jewish God. Only that now, using today’s modern technology, current Rabshakes can speak to the whole world population. Moreover, demoralization of the enemy and lowering his resolve is not done anymore by threats of death or slavery but by appealing to his morality and ethics, enhancing feelings of guilt.  Democracies are much more vulnerable to this kind of psychological warfare than dictatorships, the leaders of which care little about the opinion of their citizens. Psychological warfare becomes even more effective when the two warring parties do not share the same value systems, e.g., when one cherishes life while the other glorifies death. We can see this in the Arab–Israeli conflict where Arafat threatened to use a million suicide bomber terrorists to murder enough Jews indiscriminately so that the Jewish people surrender Jerusalem, their ancient capital, to the Arabs. This rhetoric, which was intended to demoralize the Jews, is acceptable by the Muslims who regard mortal hatred for non-believers and death in a Jihad (holy war) as basic tenets of their religion. The same rhetoric would be absolutely repugnant in Western civilization.  Without modern communication technology nobody would have been even aware of Arafat’s threats.  The use of media technology in psychological warfare has changed the objectives of the warring parties. If the US has a psychological soft spot for victims, the enemy, be it Saddam Hussein or the Palestinian Authority, are interested in enhancing their number of civilian casualties, instead of minimizing them. On the other, hand, the US or Israel are trying their best to minimize those casualties not only for humanitarian reasons but also to deprive the enemy of a propaganda tool. In this case, our modern technology of communication may be helpful in saving human lives.

Technology may also be readily abused. For instance, while defending freedom of expression we are flooded with unwanted, often insulting advertisements in our e-mail; while we were taught to be generous and give to charity, we are often solicited by illegitimate solicitors; while we view the written word as presenting the truth, we find out that we are being manipulated, especially on the Internet, by half truths or even by sheer lies.  What is even worse, contrived visual images on TV, which tell half truths, are used to demoralize us or affect our political will; we readily fall into manipulative visual propaganda traps. A case in point is the looting of the museum in Baghdad, which has been proven to be a fraudulent hoax perpetrated by the Museum personal. This “gross negligence” of the US Marines, like the fictitious “massacre” in Jenin got tremendous worldwide media coverage, besmirching the US and Israel respectively; the belated truth got hardly more than a brief mention on page 16 of the New York Time or the Washington Post.

In summary: Modern technology has changed the goals and conduct of warfare. It also changed the associated ethics and moral values. These changes must be accepted if we wish to maintain our society and culture. What is most important, we must accept selective preemptive strikes on individuals and on leadership of rogue regimes as a new way of life dictated by the modern technological tools of communication and combat.  From a humanitarian standpoint, these changes will save the lives of thousands, possibly millions, of innocent people.