Support
Ask your question
Search
Visual Collection
Popular Questions
- If we produce enough food to feed ever... latest post by DEATHFROM ABOVE | 178 responses
- Why do we lie to ourselves? latest post by IStandForTruth | 16 responses
- Why does GOD let me be sexually abused... latest post by HURRA | 11 responses
- Do animals have souls? If so, do all ... latest post by MariaCOBB | 16 responses
- Are there absolute truths or are truth... latest post by aliverdi11 | 24 responses
Popular Topics
Most active users
Films
Profile of Mark Benecke
Somebody is shouting on the other table "Yes [...]
Mark Benecke: Somebody is shouting on the other table "Yes – Yes – Yes". Humans have every right they want because humans just make up their own rights. So, evolutionary, of course, we are programmed to think that humans are more valuable than other life forms. We are programmed to think that. It doesn't make a lot of sense by now, because a little bit of a balance helps us as a species to survive. But let's not forget that all these ideas about balancing out ecologically and balancing out with other life forms is only based on the fact that we found out that our resources are getting in a little bit of a difficult situation. And to restore this, we need to get a little bit more in touch with the other life forms. It's a culture clash between what evolution programmed into us and what we now economically and socially find out to be true. So if humans decide they want to disrespect other life forms, they do have the right to do it because there is no other right than the right that human beings take. I don't like it, but it's a matter of fact.
Human beings and mankind evolve and [...]
Mark Benecke: Human beings and mankind evolve and capitalism is part of evolution because it is very efficient for the people who gain the money. It is very convenient for the lazy people, mentally lazy or structurally lazy people. So capitalism is very much a product of evolution in which you always will find invertebrates, you will find leaders, you will find structurally lower oriented animals, human beings whatever in the social structure, so it's just the same thing. Look at lions for example, the leading lions can be quite lazy but it takes a lot of energy for them to maintain their position. So, as long as there is no revolting structure coming from below and taking care of whatever is up there, it won't change. So the question is, if there is anything after capitalism, maybe it will be a modified type of capitalism. But in the end, it reflects evolution quite well. So I don't think we are going to have a land of soft, fluffy bears wearing hearts as necklaces and kissing each other. There are going to be hierarchical structures like in capitalism.
If globalization is really done on a level, [...]
Mark Benecke: If globalization is really done on a level, on which it can be done, meaning: you don't just globalize products and you don't just export ideas on your own, but if it's really kind of grass-roots approach then it will be definitly promote democracy, but if it's just about exporting ideas to other countries that are your own ideas and you don't respect people in those other countries, but just want them to be consumers, then in the end it's going to be a kind of dictatory regime, then again as long as people don't feel under dictatorship even though it is a dictatorship, it may promote both, it may promote democracy on a level and dictatorship on a level. I think the key is that people get enough economic possibilities to really be democratic, because if I don't have time, and food and water to behave democraticly then I may very well switch to a dictatorship, that provides me with what it is essential for me or what I think is essential for me. The same is true for information, if you are only provide goods, economicly, globalize, then in the end maybe people have just to struggle and work more to buy this food items, but they still don't have freedom, it's a matter of perception, I guess. I guess you can be happy in both systems.
Why do people from oppressed groups, if [...]
Mark Benecke: Why do people from oppressed groups, if oppression is the right word, why do they still defend their social group? Well, because they are part of that group. I mean, you can only be oppressed in a group if you accept that group as the people who can oppress you. So if you don't walk away, like in the United States, the person who is asking the question is from the United States, and feels unwanted, if that person doesn't walk away, it kind of accepts that this is the group of people in which he decides to live, in the end. Because you can walk away, out of the United States. You cannot walk away from some other countries, but from the United States, you can walk away. Now if you accept this group as your social group in which you live, then of course, you are going to defend it. Maybe on a lower level, with less energy than somebody who feels closer to the core of that society, but you will still do it. Because if your group biologically provides you with basic goods, especially let's say food, and you feel that this group is the group to provide you with that, then you are going to stick to the group and also defend the group a little bit. It's a biologic principle. If the suffering would be too big, you would walk away, but you don't. So why don't you? Maybe you don't feel that unwanted.
Basic dignities are based on health, wealth, [...]
Mark Benecke: Basic dignities are based on health, wealth, freedom, of course. All on a certain degree. But we do let go, or we do not take care so much what people in other societies in which we think people don't have that, because we don't want it. We first want to protect our own kin so we take care of that first. And then later maybe, we take care of other people. So, it's a biological principle. If something is wrong somewhere else, I first take care of the core structures; then I take care of the other structures. What we see now in many countries and societies, it is that if we gain a profit of any kind, a monetary profit, social profit, cultural profit from helping people to achieve basic dignities or to implement them in their societies, if we gain something from that, economically, socially, culturally, then we do help them. But first, we all had to develop our own structures, put them on a firm fundament and from that we can start to spread them. And I think this is a process that is currently happening. So, I guess basic dignities are there and basic cultural and social values and we are spreading them and the world is getting better right now. Not worse.
The question is: do we really produce enough [...]
Mark Benecke: The question is: do we really produce enough food, that is available for everybody? Is it possible to distribute all the food, that is produced to all places in the world, in the way that it can be paid for? It would be better maybe if more food would be produced in the areas where it is needed, anddelivered and distributed there and not just to produce food in a highly efficient way and then bring it to countries that can afford to buy this foods. A very good possibility obviously is to do as biological and organic and appropriate for that particular region as possible. Then people start to have enough food there and so don't export it, just leave it there, if you can, and then from that a real economical globalization and trading of the other food can go on. But at first, there has to be money and time and enough food for people to take care of these problems.
Every structure made by human beings centers [...]
Mark Benecke: Every structure made by human beings centers around gathering and protecting goods. Now if you define corruption as finding shortcuts to retaining whatever you collected, then corruption is an evolutionary trait. Because initially, especially higher animals, vertebrates, but also other animals, but mostly vertebrates, they will take care of their family and their kin and their relatives first. Now corruption is the same thing. It means you are trying to find quick paths and shortcuts with people you know. So, usually, you are bribing somebody not just to get something done, but also in the end to build up a network structure and it's a buddy system between buddies. So every system made by human beings will always fall for corruption if you don't socially control it a lot. Now, for social control, there has to be a need, so first corrupt structures have to damage something. They have to damage a structure. Very obviously, once a structure is really damaged by corruption, this will be corrected automatically, because then the corruption will be found and eliminated. That’s an evolution process. Many corrupt structures were actively built, like organized crime structures, and they were built in many cases like the Mafia structures, with the knowledge of the people in power. They were part of the system by either just knowing it or not doing anything against it or profiting from it. So, I guess corruption will always take place and it's not a basic problem as long as somebody will really take care of it.
Any structures built by human beings are on [...]
Mark Benecke: Any structures built by human beings are on the one hand in conflict with the rest of nature, because humans are predators, their are eating and destroying their environment, but that's part of the evolution, that's part of the plan. Now an economic system, any economic system, that is built by humans, will always have this basic problem inside. Humans will always use resources and will have an intense [intension?] to use them up. It's the name of the game, the name of the evolution. Now culturally of course we try to work against this, because now we know that consciously we shouldn't just use up all our resources, because it's going to kill us, but in the end, I personally believe that humans will never deeply care about their environment. If it comes hard on hard, they just going to care about themselves and this will end in deconstruction of the species, but that's not a problem, there are plenty of species left. So economically, I guess, there will always be a system of using resources as long as they can be used. So for example if people from countries that are a little weaker, they just are not interested in taking part of the globalization process as in the sense of an imperialistic globalization and maybe then they going to be happy and not being part of the deconstruction like some countries in Southern America, Colombia for example. They seem to be quite even with their environment and economy isn't that great, but there is room for improvement, they going to improve it and in the end maybe they going to balance it out all by themselves, maybe not globalized.
Corporate social responsibility is, of [...]
Mark Benecke: Corporate social responsibility is, of course, possible if the corporate structure thinks that it helps to gain their corporate goals. So, if a company thinks that it helps to invest a little bit in an altruistic way, of course altruism doesn't exist, it's just a way to get a better image or to get help from the outside, to reach your goals, then yes, they will do it. So, if a society wants their companies to have more social responsibility, meaning to be a little bit more altruistic, then the company will have to profit from that. That's a basic principle of biology. You don't help others if you don't gain a profit from that. That is a social illusion. Even people, or even companies who seem to invest a lot of money into their employees and social structures and so on, they do it a little bit for cultural values, but mostly they do it to keep efficiency high. So yes, social responsibility is possible, but it has to help the corporate goals and currently most companies' goal is to earn money, which is not a bad thing because it's a product of evolution: gaining power and wealth. As long as you don't step out of that system and just look at it from the outside, like most of us here around the table do. But not everybody can afford this or wants to step outside.
I do not see that feminine values are [...]
Mark Benecke: I do not see that feminine values are minimized in all areas. I do not see that. I work in a lot of countries and in most of the countries I see that feminine values are maybe on a level of male "blah-blah" talk, are not very important. But if you look behind the scene, backstage, you see that female values are as important as any other value. I mean, I don't know what the female value would be, but maybe a female value would be to allow things that seem to be on the opposite to happen at the same time, simultaneously or to find a better compromise. Maybe that's what the question is about. But if you look in international diplomatic structures, you will find a lot of female values. Or if you look into economical structures on the level of who trades with whom what, then in many cases, you do find female values. Maybe many people think that just because there are some imperialistic structures going on and dominating a lot of trade and diplomatics, sometimes everything is dominated like that in a kind of male and rough way. But maybe it's not. So I see a lot of softer values, if that is what female values are. I see them all around. So, society will be in balance and harmony if there is an evolutionary need. And since it is an evolutionary need, it is as balanced and as harmonic as it gets right now.
That's a very innocent question, because [...]
Mark Benecke: That's a very innocent question, because even if life began in Africa, this has nothing to do with the economical state of today. Maybe the question means that African people had more time to develop economical structures, but that's not the case, it's also an evolutionary process. Economy is an evolutionary process and it's not the oldest forces that win an evolution, it's the forces that are best adapted. Now in Africa there were so many disturbances by rich countries by internal conflicts by political inforcements that were made up on many African countries, it's just that they didn't have time to involve properly. Evolution means, economically, and also culturally it means, that you have room to play, that those, who are better adapted to economy, environment, will produce better results, reproduce more, earn more or what not. So if you send countries to war and if you inflict a lot of disturbances on them and that's true for every system not only for countries then they cannot involve properly. So the younger structures for example the United States, a very young country, a very young country, a very young culture, they just had some ideas that now economically make a lot of sense on the short term level. But maybe on the longtime level African countries will involve with much better ideas because they learnt their lesson ot they will learn their lesson that the current system doesn't work as well as it seems to work, because it's using up a lot of resources.
It is socially not acceptable, it is just [...]
Mark Benecke: It is socially not acceptable, it is just done. That's the nature of men. They don't ask, if it's acceptable or not. They just go as far as they can go without getting slapt on their heads. So as long as people in richer countries for example or it doesn't have to be a richer country or in a structure that is in power or is privileged. As long as they all [buddying?] up and feeling that the use of power and resources of other people still benefits them, they just going to do it. So the hoarding of wealth is more of the side effect, that's evolutionary, man has a tendency to first protect himself, then the inner circle, then the relatives and then if you want to the society or a country or other structures. The raison is just the more resources I have, in nature, the better I can reproduce and it's very much about egoistic gens if you want. But now in our times this all running wild. There are enough resources and there is enough wealth [directly?], but our evolutionary program is not yet there. So I think biologically it is acceptable,, culturally it is not acceptable. We just have to take the next step.
Well law, I mean, what is the law? You can, [...]
Mark Benecke: Well law, I mean, what is the law? You can, of course, break the law if you deeply, deeply are convinced that the rule that you are breaking is against all social, cultural and moral, ethical, whatever, rules that you feel to be the right ones. Of course you can break it. If you take responsibility for that, then just go ahead and do it. The question is, I guess, how willing are you to take responsibility for that and maybe to go to prison or to give your life for breaking the law. There are many good reasons to break the law. But for you personally, is it worth it? Of course, let's say if you are a torturer, and you think that the person who is telling you to torture another person is following the law, then, of course, it would be very good to step back and break that type of rule or law. But at the same time, I can understand if a person says – well, it's not worth it for me, because I'm lazy and I don't see why I should step out of society for that. So it's a very personal, individual decision that can definitely not be generalized.
Universal human rights are defined by a [...]
Mark Benecke: Universal human rights are defined by a very, very, very long evolutionary process. I guess what everybody would agree upon is that a certain degree of freedom, a certain degree of wealth and a certain degree of health is a universal human right. But this has developed. You cannot dictatorially tell people how much freedom and how much wealth and how much health is good. Because we are all interconnected economically, socially, culturally, and if a society is not ready for a certain degree of freedom, health and wealth, then it needs a long stage of negotiations and maybe even a little bit of violence. I mean, I don't like that, and maybe I wouldn't take part in the violent part, but you always have to ask yourself how much do people do who don't have freedom and wealth and health to gain it and how much do people who do have it, who want to share it with the other people? So in the end, it boils down to the question: how much do people individually want to give for this? Those who want to receive more freedom, wealth and health and those who have it and want to spread it. If we really, really want to spread universal values, if they exist, then it needs a lot of negotiation and talking and discussing and maybe also laughing and drinking, because maybe the best way to negotiate values is to find a level on which we can communicate them. So, I think it's a very individual thing and it won't be done from top to the bottom but from bottom to the top, if people want it. If !
It depends on which you define as a brand [...]
Mark Benecke: It depends on which you define as a brand and what you define as a Government. I mean a brand by itself is a compose [meaning: a composition?] of consumers and producers and the Government is composed of the people in power, but also of the people who give them power. I think brands and Governments are of the same power. It just depends on how much power the people give them.
Well, neither do I personally enjoy cheap [...]
Mark Benecke: Well, neither do I personally enjoy cheap products, because I don't enjoy them, nor do I criticize China for its industrialization. Of course, can China industrialize as much as it wants and as much as it thinks it needs? But I do not necessarily see that cheap products and industrialization are as connected as it seems. Of course, you can earn a lot of money and in some regions of China, [inaudible] region, for example, it seems that this is very much coupled, because they are producing products that are cheaply sold all over the world. Now, workers earn a little bit of money. They see that they are in power; they ask for more money to develop their family structures, I mean to build a house, to buy a car, to buy health insurance or to buy any type of insurance. I mean, the question is, wouldn't it work with less cheap products and not so much with mass production as we know it? I personally think nobody has the right to criticize China for anything except for some human rights issues. But apart from that, economically, they are doing exactly what everybody else would do if they had the same opportunities. But the first part of the question, cheap products are not necessarily related. I think the same could be done with high quality biology oriented farming products, high quality whatever type of product. So I guess China is okay.
There is not one educational system. I [...]
Mark Benecke: There is not one educational system. I mean, there are hundreds and thousands of educational systems and yes, they are evolving. The educational systems are evolving and depending on the society, I think they are quite successful. For example in Germany where I often live, our educational system gives children a lot of creativity and a lot of technical knowledge. It allows our children to function very well in our society. If you call that "blooming," then yes. At the same time if you, as a parent in a richer country have the possibilities or if you want to put your child to expose it to a softer type of education, you can do that too. "Blooming" in my opinion means that you give the child room to develop its personality, of course, but also to make it a proper part of the economic reality and that means that the child needs some type of education that will allow the child to fit in. Fitting in does not mean that you become part of the big machine. It means that you will find a job and/or a social position that allows you to gain some wealth and some influence so you feel happy, mentally, economically. So yes, our educational systems are not the worst. Of course there is room for improvement. But we are on a good way. And every society decides for themselves which system is the best. I am not talking about the dictatorial systems, of course.
Wealth as economic wealth, then yes, clearly [...]
Mark Benecke: Wealth as economic wealth, then yes, clearly yes. I mean to accumulate so much money and power and structural impact you need to have somebody who is doing the dirty work and these are sweat-job people and other very very low paid people in poor countries, but if you define wealth as mantle wealth, cultural wealth and so on, then obviously this does not, never ever, depend on other people being used, abused, being poor working for you. Because you can be, economically, very poor, but mentally and culturally, you can be at last stable. That doesn't mean that you are health, this going to be alright, but sometimes you have to pay for a good health. But in a kind of perfect world. A perfect world would be not a world with a lot of economical wealth, it would be world in which health and cultural health and social health and happiness and the will to share or evenly distribute it and in such a world you surely don't need other people to work and suffer for you, but it needs the will for everybody to do a little bit more to help the other people to get time and room and space and money to develop and I don't see that people do have that will.
Because this is a biological principle. [...]
Mark Benecke: Because this is a biological principle. It's nothing that we can consciously work on. Hundreds, literally hundreds of good scientific tests were done on the question why we find a person more beautiful, why we help a person more, why we like a person more, why a person reaches a higher level in society or in corporate structures. This is very, very much based on evolutionary and genetical influences. Genetically, for example, means that a person who looks better, meaning it's more of a symmetrical face and balanced development of the body, will gain higher positions. This works in all societies, all around the world, because it's just an evolutionary principle. It means that your body is maybe more fit to withstand changes in the environment. I don't like it either, but it's just a fact and it's totally unconscious. And for that reason, we also think evolutionary that our lives are more valuable than the lives of other people. Most human beings do think that. I'm not talking about depressive people who may think the other way around. So, what we are fighting now is a clash between culture and evolution. Evolutionary, we think we are the most valuable person. Our relatives are the next valuable ones and then everybody else comes. This works on a global scale with countries, our country may be more valuable than another country. Of course that's not true, but we have to socially and culturally fight that. That will be the next step in our human evolution.
As far as I can see it as a scientist, [...]
Mark Benecke: As far as I can see it as a scientist, countries need some basic resources to find their own ways to develop. So macro- or microfinancing, as far as I as a scientist can see it, is maybe not so much the problem as how do we implement structures that keep people who have special abilities for example scientists in the country, keep them there and let them take part into the political process to help make decisions how to develop. Macro- or microfinancing is something that we know, in which countries may think is a tool to help countries to develop, but in my personal opinion from working in many many countries that some people consider to be less developed, I don't think so, I think they just have less economical power, but I wouldn't say they are less developed. If they get a little bit room to find their own solutions, they will. So I would say, just take off political pressure and geo-strategical pressure of them, and then the question of macro- or microfinancing won't be a question anymore. The countries would find their own solutions for that and the societies.
I am not so sure if women really have a [...]
Mark Benecke: I am not so sure if women really have a disadvantage. I mean I know many countries, in which women have allegedly or by the law or by cultural standards allegedly a weak position, but then in the end, when we look very closely, they rule family, they rule operations on a higher level. They just don't necessarily enter high paid jobs, they don't enter the top of structures, economical structures, political structures and so on. But in my opinion that doesn't necessarily mean that they are not in power. Also, you could ask why are other groups of people sometimes in a disadvantage? It is just an evolutionary mistake, that we are now on a culturally very high level, but still behaving, often behaving, very much as our evolutionary programm tells us. For example females and males will choose a partner, that has a very symmetrical face. So people with less symmetrical faces are in a kind of disadvantage, but then again, maybe some power comes from being in a disadvantage, maybe you develop structures of being in power and having power, because you know that you are under a higher pressure from outside. So I am not so sure, if being in an alleged disadvantage really always is a disadvantage. Look at the X-Men or other fictional mutants. They all have a severe disadvantage or a mutation or a weakness, but it can make them strong. So as long as a Government doesn't really suppress females or people with other alleged disadvantages from entering schools and stuff. I think maybe power can be drawn from that.
If we would snap our fingers and drugs would [...]
Mark Benecke: If we would snap our fingers and drugs would disappear, then maybe no substances would be left on this planet and maybe no human beings because you can be addicted to anything. It's not the drug, obviously, that gives you the addiction. It's your brain. So some people use drugs because they are too excited, they just want to calm down. Some people are too slow, they take a drug to get a little bit more excited. But addiction is a basic principle of all life forms. A relationship that people form with each other but also with things, like your beloved teddy bear or gummi bears. It can grow into an addiction. There are different types and grades of addiction. So there is no way to remove all drugs. It's just not possible. There will always be something you can be addicted to.
I don't see why AIDS and Africa is [...]
Mark Benecke: I don't see why AIDS and Africa is disconnected from AIDS in Brazil or AIDS in the Philippines or even AIDS in economically more wealthy countries. I would say our responsibility to fight all diseases is very big and it is as bigger as more prevalent the disease is. Now since AIDS is very prevalent, our responsibility is to try to fight it on a very basic level. I guess the question refers to the fact that medication and drugs against AIDS are very expensive and if we should distribute them to countries that do not have the money to pay for them and yes, we do have a responsibility to do so. But at the same time, development of the final drug that will finally fight AIDS viruses or the AIDS virus, this will cost a lot of money, so it needs structures who have a lot of money to develop the vaccine or whichever type of drug it's going to be. So, if we would spread all the money evenly, then maybe we would help to just get some syndromes killed off, but maybe we won't have the necessary means and money and structures to find a final drug that will for all times get rid of AIDS. So yes, of course, we have a responsibility as for every illness to help to fight it all over the world. But we also have a responsibility to find a final solution and to gather enough money and structures to do that.
I would say sex, drugs and rock and roll or [...]
Mark Benecke: I would say sex, drugs and rock and roll or industrial music in my case is not the worst way to do it. It sounds ridiculous maybe, but this concept really is based upon doing things together with other things. So, if you listen to music that other people like, this will cross a lot of cultural boundaries. Everybody who travels a lot to different countries and works there or even on holidays does know that. Music has a strong influence and it really kind of touches the soul. So, if you like the same music, you can get in touch with another person who likes the same music or type of music quite easily. So there should be access to music. I know it sounds ridiculous, but it is not that way, actually. Then what's next: drugs? Maybe I don't mean drugs that screw up your brain. But what it means maybe is to be a little bit more relaxed about things and if all fails to laugh about things instead of fighting over them. Maybe just keep it a little bit on a lower level. Sometimes there are many things you can laugh about and then the problem will be solved, because people can be different and you just accept the difference and you laugh about it. You say come on, that's stupid. And you say, I think that's stupid. And that's okay. You can still like each other. It's not a problem. You don't have to have the same opinion on everything. Not necessary. And sex, obviously, is doing something with somebody else that means you try to come on a very deep and basic and raw level. And then maybe you experience that human beings have the same interests. And once you realize that we do have the same interests on the good side, as much as on the bad side, but I am talking about the good side now, that should be a good solution to many situations of boiling anger and boiling fear and boiling angst and violence. I believe in this and I practice it.
Gang violence is not about killing other [...]
Mark Benecke: Gang violence is not about killing other people. Gang violence is about finding your own social network and building your own social structure within a social and cultural structure that doesn't support you enough. So, the best way to stop that would be to mix people from different educational and cultural backgrounds, mix them, but support this mixing. I mean, it doesn't help to just mix them and then people will un-mix again. Because if they don't understand each other, they won't talk to each other and won't look at each other; it won't help. So you cannot force it. But if you make it attractive for people to mix, for example by providing a nice environment that is as interesting for people with not that much of an education compared to a person with a lot of education, you should make it attractive for open minded people and less open minded people. This will stop the violence, because then people will get to know each other; they will talk to each other; party with each other; drink with each other; have sex with each other; I don't know. But maybe that's not possible. Maybe that's just a social illusion. Maybe people want to build up social networks that are relatively dense and that will stay maybe over a lifetime. Maybe that's just what human beings do. So, maybe you can't completely break it and crunch it. Maybe you just have to live with it. As long as not the people who are in power who do have more money and influence are not willing to personally, as individuals, break open the structures by walking in, by being present, by talking to the people, by being tolerant and open. It's very easy to be open and tolerant within a tolerant and open circle. But it's much more difficult to do it in a socially weak environment. So if you're not willing to do it, gang violence will persist, I guess.
All right. If it was possible, and it is [...]
Mark Benecke: All right. If it was possible, and it is not, it is plainly not possible, but if it would be possible to disarm everybody, including personal weapons like shotguns, knives and stuff, and again it's just not possible, then there may be the good use in spending all the money that we don't use for military anymore in those cases to invest it in infrastructure projects. I personally, if I would be President of the World, I would just give people ten free tickets, ten free flights, or ship tickets, or whatever tickets, to travel to ten countries for as long as they want, talk to the other people, drink with the other people, party with the other people and understand what we share as humans and what we don't share. And why diversity is good and nice and makes life interesting. So, I would use the money for travel tickets.
Being a forensic scientist, I would compare [...]
Mark Benecke: Being a forensic scientist, I would compare the situation in the Middle East very much with very mean, always very mean neighborhood fights. If you have neighborhood fights that are growing over a few years, they become wild, aggressive and very evil. And speaking as a biologist, this is understandable. If you put people next to each other as neighbors, but they don't like each other, it kind of endangers your very personal boundaries of survival. At least this is how people perceive it. So, what would happen if I would put somebody in your room and tell you, okay, you have to live together with this person for the next thirty years. You weren't asked, and you don't like the person because it started with a little struggle and fight, you know, like between families or brothers or neighbors, and then it grows and grows and grows. And in the end, people have so many reasons to dislike each other that it won't just stop. The only way to stop neighborhood conflicts, as far as I can see that, is to have very strict rules, like for example, don't ever cross the border again. Not even with your little finger. Don't steal the cherries from your neighbor. Don't shout so that noise goes through. You have to impose very strict rules or, which is the best method, to die and dry out the conflict, is that people marry. So the beautiful daughter from neighbor A marries the nice guy from neighbor B and maybe in the Middle East, one of both solutions is going to work. Either very strict regulations, but somebody has to take care of them, or better, people start talking to each other. The old people still keep their grudge and grumbling. They can keep it and they take it to the grave. And the next and the next generation will just not remember what it was all about.
If you want your government to stop going to [...]
Mark Benecke: If you want your government to stop going to war, there are many ways. Possibility number one, is you enter the structures and the machine, the social machine, the corporate machine, whichever machine, and you come to a position in which you can stop the war. Well, it's very unlikely that this is going to happen. Because most people get lost in the system. They get lazy. They lose their goals. They start to fight over minor topics. Maybe that's not the best way. Option number two is you just leave the country or the society that is preparing that war. Now that's quite a good way, because if many, many people just don't support it by turning their backs on that government or that society, then that is quite helpful. But then again, most people don't want to leave their society. Because they say I dislike the war, I will vote against it if I am asked. But maybe you are not asked. So, that's option number two just to walk away and turn your back on that, visibly. Visibly, not just by talking on your dinner table about it. And option number three, of course, is to fight against it and to become whatever you want to call it: freedom fighter, a terrorist, a militant, a bad guy who may turn into a good guy, but who may also be just shot for taking that responsibility. So if you are willing to fight for or against this one particular war, you have many options. Many! But you need to move your ass.
It would be very cool to have a good [...]
Mark Benecke: It would be very cool to have a good international, I don't know, maybe not government but council. I like international councils a lot. I like people talking to each other, people from different cultures, people with different opinions, people with different backgrounds. I like that. The decision if an issue that is regional has global partners cannot be answered. You never know. Something can be very regional but can have a huge impact. Something can be very regional and it won't have any impact at all. But if there is a system, and we do have systems like that, that push it up on certain levels and then on these certain levels there are people who decide if this is an international issue or not, if they control for that, that's very nice. So we know from the experience in the past, let's say 50 to 60 years, we know that it's very good to have international councils who don't push things too much down on the regional level. There has to be a balance between understanding regional issues, knowing about them, but also about leaving things alone sometimes. And I guess we only learned that in the last years. I guess many people dreamt of the good dictator in a sense, which would be an international organization taking care of everything on the one hand. The other people dreamt of anarchy, so no regulations, everything would be self-regulated on the other hand. And I think we are on a really cool and good way right now having international organizations. They are sometimes slow, they are sometimes ineffective, but in many cases, they do the right thing and they do it slowly and it's good that they do it slowly. Because if not, it would only raise anger instead of really solving the problem.
Because terrorism sounds worse, so if you [...]
Mark Benecke: Because terrorism sounds worse, so if you want to do some propaganda, then you better use a term that will raise fear in the people who hear it. I would call it terrorism if a person is using violence against me and I don't like that type of violence. I mean, the baseline is that self-defense and terrorism do not have to be the same thing. Really, they don't. But in many cases, they are the same thing, so by using a term that people dislike, is raising fear and makes people uncomfortable, you just mobilize the last powers of those who are still not convinced to work against the terrorists, to be on your side. It's just propaganda. And it helps to decide for people on which side they are on.
I don't think it's true that civilian death [...]
Mark Benecke: I don't think it's true that civilian death is raising, because in former wars, many, many, many civilians died from hunger. So, I would say the modern wars are, compared to the wars in earlier times, much more clean and sterile. Just remember the good food that the troops got, the U.S.-American troops got in the war in Iraq, like vegetables and fruit and what not. And the same applies to the civilians. I mean, they do get food and infrastructural and help. Even, in many cases, from the country that is the aggressor. So it is not tolerated that more civilians die. It is just not tolerated. In contrast, the aggressor in many cases tries to take care of the country, because they have strategic interests in that country. If you are talking about the wars between different tribes or different countries or between different ethnical groups, that's a different story. They just try to plainly kill everybody. But I wouldn't define that as war. I would define that as genocide. The nature of genocide is just to kill everybody from the other ethnic or cultural, religious, whatever group. So I think our wars are getting more clean and more precise and more beautiful. It's just the genocide that becomes much, much, much more ugly than in former times.
We give as much of our liberty for security [...]
Mark Benecke: We give as much of our liberty for security as we want. This happens all the time. For example, now that some countries feel under terrorist threats, they make decisions, mostly democratic, not all of them democratic, but in many cases democratic decisions of how much of their liberty they want to give away. For example, how many of my telephone calls can be monitored? How many of my bodily movements in the sense of where do I move my body can be monitored? How many of my financial transactions can be monitored? And it's quite interesting that in many countries, for example in Switzerland or in Austria, in Europe, people don't care too much. They are like security is very important and I have nothing to hide. So record whatever you want to record. I mean not everybody is like that, but it's a tendency. In other countries, like in France or in Germany, people are not like that. They are very suspicious of any movement from the side of the government that is entering their private sphere. But you can see that this is just a cultural difference, because all the four countries that I was mentioning, Austria, Switzerland, Germany and France, they are all bordering on each other. Culturally, they are quite close, but they make very, very different decisions when it comes to how much liberty do I want to give away. What is liberty? For some people, liberty is to live in a very super-secure environment. For other people liberty is to have a little bit of insecurity but to have a little bit more personal freedom and space to move without other people recording your movements. So every society and every individual decides it for themselves. For himself, for herself. You decide how much liberty you want to give away. Because if you don't fight, democratic or not democratic decisions of taking away a little bit of liberty and trade for alleged security, then you help that system. You decide, personally.
Would you want other social groups to tell [...]
Mark Benecke: Would you want other social groups to tell you how to live? Even if you live in circumstances that you don't really prefer? Maybe not. Maybe you would want to develop a better society by yourself. Because if you feel powerless, because you are living under a dictatorship, and you have this deep feeling of being not in power and not having the means to live in a way you want to live, wouldn't you maybe also fear that another culture, another country coming in, trying to change it, is just going to make you feel again powerless and helpless, because you didn't do it? So, maybe I would be very aggressive too if somebody else came. Even if he had good intentions. I don't know. Maybe I would. I would very much like other people to help me but not in a way of patriarchal type of helping in the sense of okay, we'll take care of it. You just wait, we'll take care of it. Maybe I would prefer a way that they give me some tools, mental tools, actual tools, structural help, to develop what I want to develop. And the countries I work in who accept some help from the outside but only for a while, for example for three or five years to restructure the judicial system, to restructure technical systems, they are very happy with help from the outside and not aggressive at all, as long as the person who is helping is moving out again and is really only trying to help me with what I want to be helped with and not with ten other issues that I don't want help with. Maybe that's the way to have less aggressions in the countries that want help, but not help with everything.
I don't see why people should not get in [...]
Mark Benecke: I don't see why people should not get in contact with each other over borders, over cultural borders or over national borders. What's the problem? If you don't like your government acts, but your government is a democratically or not democratically, I mean, elected or not elected government, and you just don't want to shoot your President, which is not a reasonable option anyway, then just get in contact with the other people. This will change a lot. Just do it. Why don't you write a letter or write an e-mail? Why don't you just start with traveling around in the world? Just do it. I know, it's your personal cost, it's your personal time, it's your personal money, it's your personal social energy. You can spend the evening with your friends in the cinema around the corner. Okay. That's okay. But then don't ask yourself why there is not more cultural exchange. Because you have to do the cultural exchange. It's about you. Not about a government program, or an educational program. But about you going there or inviting somebody over. And if you do that, then you can help each other as much as you want. I do it. I am not a good person. I'm not a good person at all, but I do talk to many people in different cultures by just going there, working with them. I work with them; we have fun with each other; we party with each other; we listen to music together and we work together and we help each other. It's very easy. No big deal.
Every person should be allowed to decide [...]
Mark Benecke: Every person should be allowed to decide where he or she lives if the person is open minded enough to make a contribution of the society in which the person wants to live. Not everybody should be free to go wherever he or she wants to go if the person is not willing to make a contribution. But if the person only wants to take from the society into which the person goes. On a general level, of course, everybody should travel as freely as possible and decide where he or she wants to live. Totally, one hundred percent. But this only makes sense if people have enough education and good spirit and love and critical knowledge to be able to understand the society they enter. A good way to start that is just to be humble and mild and friendly. If you start with that, I guess you are more than fine. But if you have the vampire trait of just taking and sucking from other people, from other societies, I guess it won't help anybody and it won't help you too. But in general, freedom of travel: yes, yes, yes, yes. And also freedom to decide where you want to live.
Humans have a tendency to enslave other [...]
Mark Benecke: Humans have a tendency to enslave other people, if they can on a certain degree. In former times, as actual slaves, nowadays in the form of maybe paying them very low wages. The world would not have changed that much on the very basic level of mankind as drugs, I mean, maybe there would be some geo-strategical differences. Maybe there would be some country borders, borders between countries would be different. But societies will always build themselves up by using the workforce and the labor of people who are not paid or not paid a lot and to live under conditions that they can less determine than the people in power. So, I don't think the world would be very different. Maybe it would have been a world in which slaves would not have been slaves as we understand it today, but they would have been very low paid people. But somebody would have been forced to do the dirty work. Somebody would.
Yes, there is something better than [...]
Mark Benecke: Yes, there is something better than democracy in a sense. I mean, it's not substituting democracy but it's good if people stand very, very, very firmly for what they believe is right and then discuss it, or as a result of a discussion. So, stand firm after a democratic process took place and once you do that, take responsibility. It may take a lot to stand up. For example, someone just said the war in Iraq, nobody wanted it, so why did it happen? Well, because many people wanted it. Too many people wanted it or they didn't care. So, if you want to add a little bit of an extra to democracy, then it would be stand up for what you believe is true, fight for it, choose your weapons and be ready to get smacked, because maybe people don't like it a lot. So democracy is good, but democracy plus a lot, a lot, a lot of personal responsibility taken by individuals, not by your neighbor, not by the government, not by the guy next door, but by you yourself. That would be a nice addition to democracy. And in those cases, wars that were really not wanted would really not happen, because then nobody would go and everybody would take the responsibility for not going.
Every war is justified in a sense because a [...]
Mark Benecke: Every war is justified in a sense because a society decided to fight that war. Of course, there are no holy wars, there are no good wars. But every war has a reason and that reason was decided upon by a society, by a social and cultural network that just decided to do that war. It's not so much a question of intervention against terrorism, against self-defense. It's not so much the point. You can call it war in every single instance. You can always call it war. The question is maybe more how willing are you to support that system that is just going to war right now? How much personal energy are you willing to put against the goals of this war or do you maybe consciously or subconsciously agree with the goals of that war. For example, if there is a war for geo-strategic reasons to ensure that you have enough energy for your PlayStation, for your TV set and for your car, are you really, really willing to step out of your society that is actually doing the war but at the same time taking care of you and your energy needs? Are you willing to step out of that system? Most people are not. They will say they are against the war, but in reality they are not against the war.
Change can happen very gracefully. It [...]
Mark Benecke: Change can happen very gracefully. It could, but it takes the strength of individuals, of many, many, many individuals to take responsibility for what they stand up for. As long as most individuals give their power to the government, it will always be government against government, or country against country or culture against culture. If, on the other side, much more individuals would take their personal responsibility in fighting for what they think is change, non-violent change, like the question asks for, then it's going to be a non-violent change. But I don't see so many individuals really fighting against the violence that a government applies. What I see in many countries is that people don't dare to stand up. And they don't dare to stand up because they do not want to be personally responsible. They do not want to be sent to prison. They do not want to be on a lower social level. They do not want to lose their car, their TV set, their children, their wife, their house. And I understand that. So I think the question is how willing are you to fight in a sense for non-violent change, because that would mean you talk to people from other cultures, you try to understand people from other cultures, you travel to people from other cultures, you spread the word from people from other cultures. If you are willing to do that, and if you do it and not just talk about it, there will be a lot of non-violent changes. And if there are enough non-violent changes on the grass-root level, then finally there will be a non-violent on the big scale. Just do it. Just move, don't talk about, do it. Travel, talk, party with other people from other cultures.
Okay, what is terrorism? If you define [...]
Mark Benecke: Okay, what is terrorism? If you define terrorism as what is currently defined as terrorism, that means minorities are trying to bomb their way through established, mostly imperialistic network structures, then everybody profits from it. The industry profits from it, because they are building the weapons, they are making a profit from there straight away. The government that is attacked profits from it, because people start to unite behind that government, they would say, okay, we know who the bad guys are, now let's forget about minor topics, and let's fight terrorism. Even though it may not be as much of a danger as it seems to be for people. And then the people who are the terrorists obviously profit from it in the sense that they did what they wanted to do and they did what they believed was right and that may also lead to unification processes and political people standing behind the political ideas of that. In the end, on the long term, of course nobody profits from it because there are better ways to solve the problems. But the terrorists maybe just ran out of options in their own opinions. They do not have the diplomatic means, they do not have the time, they do not have the food, they do not have the health, they do not have the wealth to fight for their goals on a diplomatic level and maybe they are just plainly not right. But I would say everybody profits from it on a short term level.
Courage means the same that it always meant. [...]
Mark Benecke: Courage means the same that it always meant. Always, always, and always will mean. It means move your ass. Not the ass of somebody else. Move your ass. Stand up for what you believe is right but first think about what you think is right. Don't just copy it from anybody. Think about what you want and then do what you want. Like there are many phrases to say it: 'don't dream it – be it', or 'stand up for your rights' and so on. You know the phrases. Courage is taking personal, personal responsibility. Not pointing to other people ever. Never, ever. But pointing what you are willing to do. If you don't like wars, if you don't like structures that seem to be unjustified to you, then ask yourself, how much did I do today against it? Don't ask what the government did, what the world did, what God did, ask what you, yourself did. That's courage. And also be ready to take the consequences, because people may not like what you are standing up for. If you don't like that, then you don't have courage.
I don't know, it's supposed to be more [...]
Mark Benecke: I don't know, it's supposed to be more dangerous because the countries who think they are in power and who do have the means to push their interests through don't want other countries who they want to dominate, have a nuclear bomb. So, it's not that the bomb is more dangerous or less dangerous; it's just that it's against the geo-strategic goals of western countries, basically.
There is very effective enforcement of [...]
Mark Benecke: There is very effective enforcement of international law. It just doesn't seem like that. In diplomacy and in very high political structures, you can't just enforce things like at home, like – you clean the dishes. No, no, no, no, no, no it doesn't work like that. You have to give governments room to push things through in their society a little more slowly. Because on an international level, in many cases you don't understand the cultural structures. In many societies, things happen in a very chaotic way, but in the end, the result is quite nice. In other societies, things work very structured and orderly and the results are also very nice. As long as it is appropriate for a culture to deal with a topic, soft pressure is the best method, and not tough pressure, because tough pressure will always activate anger and fear and feelings of being helpless. But if you do it with soft pressure on an international level, you know, just like making the government that has to do something to pay a little more and to have a little bit of a loss of image, and just trade-offs, international trade-offs, I think that's fine. So in my opinion, the international enforcement of rules is as good as it gets right now. It's on a very good level. So you can't have a perfect world with perfect enforcements. It's not happening.
Yes, I do know the connection between [...]
Mark Benecke: Yes, I do know the connection between violence and politics. Because if you want to enforce a political goal and you cannot enforce it by diplomatic means, and you think it is really important for your goal and society, be it for reasons of power or economics, then you will resort to violence. That is very normal. It's not good, but it's normal because this is how evolution works. First you try it soft, and then you try it hard. It's a struggle that deals about survival and this survival is a very deep evolutionary thing. It's about life itself and then about the life of you and your society. Everybody resorts to violence. I mean, sometimes to defend yourself, which we think today is okay. But it all started also with aggression and attacking other people. And it happens all the time and that's the connection between politics and violence. It's a connection between man trying to push their goals by all means. Mankind is not good and men are not good. They are what they are: partially violent.
I am not so sure about that. It may think, [...]
Mark Benecke: I am not so sure about that. It may think, most people when they talk about colonialism at this point they think that spreading global brands or something like that all over the world is kind of colonialism, but I personally know many countries in which people just don't buy those products, for example. So it's not so much that people walk in with guns and they just say – okay we are the boss now here. It's more that they quite aggressively sometimes, I have to say, quite aggressively, promote a brand and their cultural values and so on. But look to Southern America. I am very much under the impression that many, many Southern Americans just don't buy the cultural values from the rest of the world. They like parts of it and parts of it they don't like. So when I go to a party in Columbia, I hear some international pop songs, but most of the time I hear Spanish speaking songs. Be it salsa or rock music or whatever. So it's the individuals who make the decision to be part of the process of taking over cultural values. You don't have to take them if you don't like them. But if you like them, then take them. You don't have to feel guilty for that. If you like a product from a globalized brand, then take it. But if you don't like it, then don't take it. So I don't think it's as bad as before when people came with weapons and forced you to do whatever they wanted to.
Freedom is relative to where you are in your [...]
Mark Benecke: Freedom is relative to where you are in your head. Also where you are in the world, but also where you are in your head. Freedom has very relative connotations, so you can feel very, very free in a very, very restricted environment and you can feel very unhappy and un-free in a very non-restricted environment. So it depends very much on your personal feelings. For example, many people feel free and happy in highly structured environment. They go to work, they get certain goods in exchange, a car, a house, a family, maybe even free speech, a TV set, DVD's, jewelry, what not. So in their definition, they are free. But, for example, for me personally and for many, many people here on this table, it's not freedom. Maybe for us, it's freedom not to have any goods and not to have a structured daily routine, but to have no daily routine on a very, very high personal expense. Meaning you don't know if you are going to earn money tomorrow and the day after. Maybe you don't even know about your social security. Maybe you don't even know where in the world you are going to end up. So you don't know about your social network. But for many of us, that would be freedom. So, freedom depends on some level on where you live. Many countries have travel restrictions. That's very, very bad. You don't get a visa, you cannot go to the country you want to go to, bad, very bad. But in the end, it's a matter of your personal perception, I would say. How free are you inside of your head? How awakened are you to what you feel is important?
This is an evolutionary process, really. [...]
Mark Benecke: This is an evolutionary process, really. People in general, I mean man as a biological instance, have a tendency to take as much as they can. Now, sooner or later, this is going to collide with the interest of the society the person lives in, the group of people. And then they are going to tell them no, you are going to have to share and no, you can't just take, you also have to give. All right. So in general terms, this is really an evolutionary process. The boundaries of your personal freedom are determined by the society you live in, and they can be very weird, these boundaries, but you are going to have to live with them if you decide to live in a society. A very plain and simple example is nudity. In the United States, for example, nudity is a social taboo. In Central Europe or Northern Europe, nobody cares about nudity. You can run around naked in the middle of the street, you can go to the sauna with male and female friends. Nobody cares. So why would you want to take the personal freedom to run around nude in a society that doesn't like that? It doesn't make sense. Now social responsibility would always mean that you just try to understand the social rules of the community you live in and you just stick to them. And if you don't like them then either just leave that community and do leave the community then or you fight for a change. And you just ask yourself – is it worth it? Is it worth fighting for that change for me personally or should I leave or should I fight or should I not do anything? So I don't think this is a question that you have to think too much about because it's cultural evolution that will tell you where the boundaries are. And as long as you are not insane or anti-social or psychopathic, you will very easily understand where your role in that society is.
We always have biodiversity. We always have [...]
Mark Benecke: We always have biodiversity. We always have that for everything. Not only for resistance, but also for the evil brands, the evil governments, the good governments and the good brands. We always have a diversity of everything because that's in the nature of things. In our case also in the nature of mankind. There is no mean value. There is no consent, there is no one good compromise. There will always be diversity. So if you ask yourself, is it better to be non-violent or violent in a fight, then the answer is – it depends. It depends on you and it depends on the situation and it especially depends on how willing are you to take responsibility for what you do? Do you want to shoot the evil dictator knowing that you will be shot one second later? I don't know, you have to make that decision yourself. Do you want to give your life to work in an organization that does support a goal that you like? Be it rescuing whales or forests, be it an economical goal to make people rich all over the world or just your people. How much are you willing to give? How convinced are you of your goal? And then you can choose the weapons. It could be a pen, it could be a gun, it could be a camera, it could be a piece of paper, it could be a knife, it could be your life.
