The Warrior Class

"Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay -- and claims a halo for his dishonesty." ---- Robert A. Heinlein

I believe the warrior class is still needed in our society. Unfortunately, pacifism is the popular ideology in western society, demonizing the warriors as being no better than the hoodlums that the warrior swears to resist. The warrior is still needed to stand as an example and a protector, but it will have to come in a new form of warrior. I describe that warrior here.

The warrior is primarily a scholar, one who devotes himself to a life of sacrifice, hard work, and rigorous study (both physical and academic) so that those he loves do not have to. My use of the masculane pronoun "himself" is no accident; men are the ideal warriors because men are almost universally expendable to society. I know this may sound rather sexist to some people, but it's the truth, as vetted by millions of years of evolution. It's far too expensive to allow women -- who bare the the children who will make the next generation -- to fight and perhaps die to protect "the herd".

There is a lot of fear in our current society of warriors as a class, and some of it has merit. Looking back at feudalist societies, they were dominated by the warrior politicians, who used the sword to take what they wanted instead of using diplomacy and trade. It was a function of the progression away from subsistance-based tribalism where totalitarianism was safer than democracy. As technologies improve and production surpluses arise, societies grow, decentralize, and democratize. Running parallel to this democratization, the physical prowress of the studied warrior has only increased, and yet he does not hold a position of such political power today as he once did.

There are examples of non-abusive warrior classes throughout history. In particular, the Shaolin monks come to mind, an entire society of warriors. This is the sort of warrior "caste" I'm talking about. It's the resolute acceptance that one's life shall be devoted to the study of violence, and all of its implications. It is sacrifice, and that makes it an action based in love, love for those the warrior swears to protect.

I believe that, all other things being equal, one studied in violence will be less likely to use violence than one who has given no thought to it. The warrior has a better understanding of the ramifications of violence, understanding it's use as a tool, and how it can be misused. The distinguishing factor between whether or not violence will be used for good or evil is Malevolence, which itself can manifest in many ways other than just violence (see so-called "office politics"). The physical act of inflicting pain and suffering of some type on others is not so difficult that a layperson could not figure it out, even if somewhat crudely. We are all physically capable of violence to some degree. And, given the "heat of the moment," we are all mentally capable of hurting someone. Where a warrior's (that is, a true warrior, distinct from just a brawler) training comes in is giving him concious knowledge of where violence is appropriate, and how to live with the consequences thereafter.

I'm not talking about bringing back the Knighthood, or creating social structures around mighty rulers. I'm talking about a personal life philosophy of sacrifice, so that those they love will not have to, of conciously deciding that you will hold yourself to a seperate standard, and that you will not allow yourself to fall into the bystander effect. When everyone else stands by and watches, damn the cannons, the warrior steps in.

WALL-E

I recently saw the movie WALL-E, or "Waste Allocation Load-Lifter, Earth-class". There has been a lot said about it being an environmentalist movie, both for the green and the anti-green crowds. I have to say though, I think they are overplaying it, and missing a much more important theme.

The environmentalism thing is really just a backdrop, a literary contrivance to create a conflict for the characters to grow over. The real, REAL underlying message of the story is one of liberty, individuality, of anti-nanny-statism. WALL-E is an ugly, dirty, quirky, weird robot, and it's because he is such an outsider that he saves the day.

Through his pursuit of the unknown, and perhaps even forbidden (we aren't shown any other robots falling in love or having relationships), WALL-E enacts vast social change. He instigates a misfit robot rebellion. He gets people seeing each other for the first time. If anything, you could call WALL-E a virus of humanity. Everyone he touches comes alive for the first time, and starts seeing the world in a new light ("I didn't know we had a pool").

Some other reviews I've read have been saying the movie is anti-progress and anti-technology. I don't think that is true at all. It's very clearly pro-technology, anti-technocracy. It's a warning to not become so complacent that we allow unfeeling computers to control our lives. Even the best computer, Auto-Pilot, gets things wrong, just because of its stubborn insistence to adhere to its directive and failing to take new factors into account. Auto-Pilot did a good job of keeping humanity safe for 700 years, enough time for Earth to heal itself, so even the subjugation of the people through domestication was necessary to a certain degree. Auto-Pilot just didn't know when to quit. Computers need the human input, the manual override.

That doesn't make the movie anti-technology, though. The humans would still be under the robots' spell if it weren't for a handful of rogue robots coming to the rescue. Even after the overthrow of the technocracy, the humans are portrayed as living in harmony with the robots. People are shown doing manual labor where such a thing could ideally be deemed adventurous or edifying in some way, and where such labor is mundane or dangerous, the robots come in to play. This is the sort of "healthy" human-technology relationship for which we should strive. Certainly not letting technology take care of everything for us.

I can't say the movie is without flaws. I find it hard to believe that a corporate monopoly is going to A) develop, B) take over the world, and C) destroy the world, in any time, let alone less than 100 years from now. But without any explanation for how that happened, it can hardly be considered anything more than just a plot device. We are at least told that people had to buy their tickets on the Axiom, suggesting that some people were left behind who could not afford a ticket, left to die. A rather chilling thought, and one I suspect was not considered, if only for the fact that this is "just a kids movie". Disney films aren't allowed to have more than one death (I don't know if that's true, but it sounds good). An entire civilization is a little too much of a divergence from that.

It's a wonderful movie, about as good as a movie can get. Pixar really needs to start being honest that these movies are for adults.