An Irrefutable Argument Against War (Part 2 of 3)

(Part 1: http://www.evolver.net/user/bebop)

With every unnatural demise, a question remains: How many ideas are killed with every death?

Does this seem like a strange association?

We kill the potential for ideas when we allow unnatural or premeditated deaths to remain rooted within conceptions of normalcy. It has been commonly accepted that our species lives within at least three spheres of existence: physical, mental, and that stuff that leaves your body when you die (Consciousness). Considering that our species evolves because of a conscious capacity, which for us manifests as a dual physical and psychological existence made possible by Creative Consciousness; it should follow that in order to prolong the existence of our species, we must invest equally in the development of our bodies and the development of our ideas/knowing (consciousness).

Language was an idea; the computer, too; the table; clothes; books; society. The list goes on and on into infinity. Literally. That is why ideas, in particular, are so invaluable. There is no known "cap" to ideas. Ideas are perhaps the most populous species on Earth. And because idea-making, for our species, mostly takes place as a function of the physical body on Earth; when you kill a person it follows that you are also killing off all the potential ideas they might have uniquely expressed while alive. And because ideas breed like rabbits (so to speak), by killing a person you are also obstructing the potential proliferation of a great deal of other ideas made possible by association/connectivity. This is why killing people is so dangerous! We are depriving ourselves of knowledge, of understanding and of consciousness by accepting unnatural, premeditated deaths as justifiable or natural.

Ideas are necessary for the prolongation of our species because they allow us to create in more than a physical way (i.e. breeding); and by continuously creating and maintaining systems of knowledge, we further our preservation. Consciousness has laid open a variety of ways for our species to both understand and express (create) our existence. It is an amazing byproduct of our expression of life that we express ourselves through the creation of things. We perceive our own worlds from inside our individual consciousness, and project that world via the unique expression of ourselves.

By interacting throughout history, we have created large networks of understandings and expressions on the planet Earth. After organized thought, language may have come around "shortly" thereafter, then a sense of community, then the action of maintaining a community, etc. Our ideas of community and self-preservation have evolved over time with the expansion (and contraction) of our consciousness. Ideas must progress, they are a byproduct of Consciousness; and that means they do not simply go forward, but also vibrate at a higher frequency. Yet it has become evident with time that many ideas functioning as maintained systems of knowing on this planet are not sustainable. They stagnate rather than progress and they do not run parallel to the nature of our Omniverse (Conscious Infinity).

Back in history, when the connection of the Earth and its inhabitants was an idea that was not that easily accessible or maintained, distance and ignorance made things appear to be much more static. One country could rule or "own" another. One people were "better" than others. "You" could nearly wipe out an entire continent of indigenous people and think it had no affect on us or the progression of history. "You" could burn an entire library of books from a culture you never bothered to learn anything about and think it meant nothing in the long run. But in the present, given the expansion and accessibility of globalization (in all its forms), it is evident that "you" can no longer create destruction without also causing a reciprocal effect on our Earth community.(This was actually evident and accepted by many historical Earth cultures). In fact, you never could, but history is constantly reacting back on us in the present where it never seemed to affect our ancestors in their present times.

Every individual - naturally born with the potential for an infinite amount of ideas (consciousness) - is a potentially invaluable asset to our species. This is why rearing, existing, living well (healthily, for you) and dying well is tantamount to sustaining a species that progresses only on the basis of its creations. One person, expressing their ideas, can cause a ripple effect that changes our world.

So doesn't it follow that one unnatural premeditated death - just one - could also change our world by its lack of expression?

By killing individuals, allowing them to be killed, and by stunting understanding of the uniqueness (and inherent unity) of individual life, we instigate the expedited demise of our species.

So shouldn't we know better than our ancestors by now? Especially considering that by existing in the present, we are at the greatest advantage when it comes to our species' history, choices, R/responsibility and development?