You have cut-and-pasted the words of someone who writes nice prose, but he fundamentally repeats one basic thought over-and-over. We humans have instinctive drives to acquire property and comforts, and to procreate, and we are willing to repel, with force, any effort by outsiders to harm our families or to take our property, and that instinct is the underlying cause of war.
For centuries, all the greatest minds that mankind has been able to produce have not been able to find a way to stop people from going to war against each other from time-to-time. The best minds of this century thought that WWI would be the war to end all wars, and they thought that WWII would be the last great war, but we know that we have not seen the last war. Nevertheless, your Mr. Pugsley believes that he has found the solution that has eluded all the greatest minds since the inception of humankind. He has found the way to end all war. (Is it possible that he is suffering from a touch of egomania?) He says, "The solution to all forms of war, including terrorism, will be found in a deeper understanding of man''s biological programming."
Now, let''s explore the "depth" of his thinking. Mr. Pugsley explains that, we humans are biologically programmed to acquire food, property and creature comforts and to procreate, and we are willing to repel, with force, any effort by outsiders to harm our families or to take our property. By my way of thinking, that is not a very "deep" concept. It''s actually a thought that has passed through the mind of Everyman. At some time or another, all of us have thought we might have to defend, with force, our families or our property.
Mr. Pugsley believes that, if we truly want to end all wars, all we have to do is find "a deeper understanding" of the above concept. Mr. Pugsley doesn''t say what more we need to understand about that concept. Perhaps he believes that we do not understand that other people don''t want us to harm their families or to take their property, just as we don''t want them to harm our families or to take our property. Mr. Pugsley believes that, if we respect the rights of murderous, suicidal, barbarians who strap bombs to the bodies of their children, and who kiss them good-bye, and send them off to die, then they will respect our rights. If that is the revolutionary idea that the "deep thinking" Mr. Pugsley has stumbled upon to put an end to war, I''m afraid Mr. Pugsley can''t claim to be the original author of that idea. That idea is known as the "golden rule," and that idea has been the basis of every system of law that has ever been devised by civilized man. It is an idea that is inculcated into every child by his or her parents, school and church, but, despite all those efforts, and the best of intentions, we still have wars.
Mr. Pugsley proposes that "The answer to minimizing human conflict, and particularly war, will be the design of a social contract that protects every individual''s property," but that, too, is not a new idea. Where has old Pugsley been for, oh, say, the last century? We devised numerous social contracts in an effort to put an end to war. That''s why the League of Nations, and the United Nations, and a whole plethora of treaties were created, but none of them succeeded in their lofty goal. Why? Because people comply with contracts only as long as they believe it is beneficial to them to do so. When someone like Saddam Hussein decides not to comply with a peace agreement that requires that he allow inspections, to ensure that he is not manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, how do we enforce that contract? We have an absolute, indisputable right to seek assurance that he isn''t secretly manufacturing nerve gas, biological warfare agents and nuclear weapons to use against our citizens within our own borders. We can sue him, perhaps in a world court. (That is an idea that is frequently proposed by anti-war crowd.) But, all a court can do is enter a judgment on a piece of paper, and perhaps order that Mr. Hussein comply with the contract. But, what do you do if he disobeys the court order? That piece of paper doesn''t automatically solve the problem. It has to be enforced in some meaningful way. We have tried imposing sanctions, but they have not been successful. Should we just sit here and wait for these barbarians to nuke the City of New York, or Chicago, or Los Angeles? That would relegate President Bush to a place in history alongside Nero, who, you will remember, fiddled while Rome burned. President Bush has decided to pre-empt the threat, to intervene before the threat becomes reality, and he''s right in doing so.
If Mr. Pugsley finds a way to end all wars, I will be the first to suggest that we erect a monument to his greatness, but, before we erect that monument, Mr. Pugsley needs to flesh out his idea a bit more. So far, I haven''t seen anything but shallow, common platitudes in Mr. Pugsley''s thinking, and we don''t build monuments to such twaddle. I don''t understand how you can inhale those old, stale, failed ideas, and call it "a breath of fresh air."
I also don''t understand why you persist in posting this propaganda on a sailing website.