by Fred Bundy, staff writer
The flaw with every criticism of our current situation in Iraq is the idea that the war is a partisan issue or at least commands the attention to which the effects of certain actions bearing emotional weight demand. No, the war and the major concern, death of innocent “lives,” has no real bearing outside of a pure utilitarian mode.
To enumerate our problems, one: we, as a species, have a grossly unchecked rate of population. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the world will hold seven billion people within seven years. Two: the lower socio-economic standing communities hold the greater possibility of producing more children, which, naturally, further perpetuates the exponential growth of the lower class (see: any third-world country).
Enter the war. The said lower class is seen as having no real outlet for existence save for the elementary tasks neither you nor I would consider troubling with. We then present them with the option of defending a government to which they have already willingly enslaved themselves. We can refer to Thoreau, dangerous and perhaps unnecessary, citizens who not only refuse the government, but act against it are the only living men. “The mass of men serve the State, thus not as men mainly, but as machines… they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones…”
If we are to see the lower class, then, as objects that command no emotional pull, lose their privilege as sentient beings, I ask why is there a need to put any value on keeping them alive? A man, who has no other desires but to give his body and thus giving up his title as a cognitive being to the State, should be granted the opportunity to enlist in the armed services, and it is while still functioning in the physical mode, we must allow him to serve our State with the highest means (one’s life) and thusly subject his will and breath to the hiemal hands of the State, and with the concern we give to tossing blocks of wood into a fire, we must lessen our guilt upon the toy soldiers fulfilling their duty.
An easy rebuttal accepts the fact that we still exist in a class society, but says a society such as this must not rid itself of the lower class if we wish to be successful. I argue, however, are we not a people obsessed with efficiency? Instant coffee, microwaves and fax machines; things are never happening fast enough. So why are we not investing heavily into finding better methods for the trite jobs that real men should not be bothered with? Can we not put a halt to the space program, and subvert those trials into producing hired help of the robotic type? Naturally, after the transitional phase that will take place, the lower class could be eradicated, or more correctly, will have evolved into a higher performing group. For if they are to see a flesh-less work force gradually interpolate what had been their typical outlet for labor, the expectations of the lower class will have to rise, and more will be determined to seek levels of higher education. Then, not only will we be more efficient as a society, but more educated, and less likely to produce offspring at an irresponsible rate.
Clearly then, we see, war produces the greatest ratio of happiness (see World War II). Not only do we slowly rid ourselves of the citizens that are not really living, which benefits everyone in ways too innumerable and time consuming to list, but we can then pull ourselves from this sludge-ridden era that has dogged our feet for too many years. Our people will push themselves to higher education and be more effective in the work force, thus returning America to the power it once was.
