Choose the Cuddly Panda:
How to Not Make Things Worse
Joe Moncarz November 2022
Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.
-Confucius
-Confucius
Why do we so often take a bad situation and make it even worse? If you think it's just U.S. presidents, the World Health Organization, fruitarians, and math teachers who do this, you're wrong.
You see, it's civilization which is all about making things worse. Civilizations love conflict, and the more, the better. There has never been, and will never be, a peaceful civilization. For instance, among civilized humans, nearly all conflict is a form of conquest. Open any history textbook, and that's all you find. One nation tries to take land and resources from another. One nation tries to destroy another. One brain-damaged king tries to hump the leg of another brain-damaged king. Or just walk down the street and look around. One business tries to shut down a competing business. One person has to prove the other person wrong. One person has to ruin another's reputation. One person steals the other person's pet turtle. Conquest. That's why our culture is entirely focused on the idea of winners and losers. In civilization – especially industrial civilization – all relationships have been converted into a form of market transaction, or more aptly a military transaction, in which there is a winner and loser. Someone is profiting off someone else. Someone is exploiting someone else. Someone is gaining at the expense of others. Someone is conquering someone else. My team defeats your team.
The problem is, the idea of winner and loser is very misleading. In reality, the winner always loses, too. The winner just loses in different ways to the “loser”, which is why it's easy to miss. There's a reason why human cultures actively and purposely minimized competition during our two million years on Earth. Competition is a pathology. Like greed, selfishness, and arrogance, the idea of winners and losers was always seen to cause conflict and to make peaceful relations impossible. Competitiveness is much-exalted in our society, yet it really is the desire for conquest, and, like everything else in civilization, it's not healthy.
A healthy culture would be one that minimized conflict. It would be one which minimized competition and minimized the exploitation of others. It would be one which does not celebrate competitiveness, arrogance, greed, or conquest. It would be one which promoted dialogue and understanding. It would be one with minimal hierarchy. It would be a culture which stressed the need for diplomacy, negotiation, and other non-violent methods of conflict resolution. (Fry 2003, 2009, 2015) If you think this is just a silly dream of an unshaven tree hugger, consider that some cultures, such as the Mardu Aborigines of Australia - didn't even have a word for war. (Fry 2012)
In any conflict, the failure to negotiate, settle, or make peace almost always results in worse outcomes – especially for the side which refuses to negotiate.
Take the Ukraine today. The Ukrainian government's refusal to negotiate with Russia is condemning the country to a prolonged war in which the Ukrainian people will be the big loser – and they have no chance of ever defeating Russia. Their reliance on Western weapons to continue to attack Russian forces only assures more destruction of their own cities and infrastructure. An estimated 100-200 Ukrainian troops are already being killed each day. (Sabbagh 2022) Is it really worth it? On the other hand, Russia has long made clear – dating back to 1990 – that Ukraine's admission to NATO would not be tolerated. The Ukraine government and its Western backers are the real aggressors, crossing a known red-line. It was always known that Ukraine's admission to NATO would be considered an act of war. The Ukraine military was also shelling the Donbass 2,000 times a day before Russia entered the country, and had already killed 14,000 people in the preceding eight years. (Which also backs up a similar point that the side that first appears to be the “victim” is often the aggressor.) And from the beginning, Russia has laid out its terms for the end of the war – a good starting point for negotiations. Putin just recently repeated his desire for negotiations, adding that “those who refuse to do so should know that the longer it lasts the more difficult it will be for them to make a deal with us.” (“Putin” 2022) And he's absolutely correct. The government of Ukraine could end the conflict today – through negotiation. Instead, it begs for weapons and is planning on raising a “one-million person” army to prolong the war for years. (McGarvey 2022) The big loser in all this is already the Ukrainian people.
Counterintuitively, as in the case of the Ukraine, often it's the aggressor who gets more than they bargain for. The recent Johnny Depp-Amber Heard defamation lawsuits started when Heard accused Depp of domestic abuse. This backfired on her. Because of the accusation, she was the one exposed in the recent trial as an unstable, violent abuser and a highly deceitful person, the trial destroyed her reputation, and likely damaged her future in Hollywood. The lawsuit also cost her millions of dollars, and she is reportedly unable to pay the ten million dollars she now owes Depp.
One reason why aggressors get more than they bargain for is that those on the defensive will use any and all means to defend themselves. Think again of Russia's response to NATO aggression. Or think of pandas. Not just because it's always nice to think of pandas, but if you cornered a cute and cuddly panda, that panda would maul you to defend itself. This really did happen. A visitor to a zoo in China climbed into the panda enclosure and approached the panda. The normally very peaceful panda felt threatened and mauled the person. Once the man was removed from the enclosure, the panda carried on as before, peacefully eating bamboo leaves, with no desire for revenge against the man, and holding no grudges. (“Panda” 2008)
But you could choose just about any animal to demonstrate this effect. Animals generally don't seek revenge and don't hold grudges (except perhaps those held in captivity – see Hribal 2011). They don't have fragile egos that need to be constantly soothed. They just want to nap and eat. But if you corner them, or get in their space, they'll lash out using everything they've got. Think of a rattlesnake. Most people hate snakes, but hear me out. I consider rattlesnakes one of the best of all poisonous snakes. First of all, they mind their own business. They're not aggressive and they don't come after people (unlike math teachers). Even more, they're very patient and thoughtful. They use their rattle to warn you to move away. They'll give you plenty of time to figure it out, too (in case you're as slow as you are during a math test). They don't want to waste their venom on you, but if you keep approaching, only then will they bite.
The animals teach us a good lesson. Animals, just like most people, want to be left alone. And contrary to the many misleading nature documentaries which only focus on the infrequent dramatic moments in animals' lives, animals – even predators – are quite peaceful. As Douglas Fry writes:
Obviously, humans have the capacity to engage in war, but a growing body of studies on animals and humans suggests that nature is less violent than commonly has been assumed. (Fry 2012)
But if we're aggressive towards animals, they'll be aggressive back. And it will be painful. So it really is up to us, which animal behavior we want to see. Do you want the cute and cuddly panda? Or do you want the angry, mauling-your-face-off panda? The recent number of people getting mauled by bison in Yellowstone National Park is further proof that animals just want to be left alone, and some people who disregard that end up paying the price. (Rogers 2022)
In global politics, we often see how aggression backfires. Various U.S. economic moves against China only backfire and hurt the U.S. economy. The current NATO proxy war against Russia has caused oil shortages, higher oil prices, higher food prices, and global inflation – including for the U.S. and Western Europe, the aggressors. The U.S. invaded Vietnam for no good reason and was so sure of itself and its superior strength, only to get its ass kicked by the guerrilla tactics of the Viet Cong. It's not like the North Vietnamese were sitting around dreaming of killing Americans and hoping the U.S. would invade. They were minding their own business. In the end, American soldiers (and their families) paid an enormous price in terms of being physically injured, crippled, and psychologically traumatized. (Hedges 2003, 2014) Just as the Soviet Union was beaten out of Afghanistan by the Mujahideen, also reliant on guerrilla tactics. Soviet soldiers and their families also paid an enormous price in terms of being physically injured, crippled, and psychologically traumatized. What guerrilla movements around the world have demonstrated, in fact, is that in self-defense, smaller and weaker forces can topple larger and stronger forces (the aggressors), or at least inflict such heavy losses as to make any claims to victory a pyrrhic victory.
But generally, both sides will always lose from a failure to negotiate - though again, they will lose in different ways.
Israel's refusal to negotiate - in good faith - with the Palestinians has made life extremely difficult – and a humanitarian disaster (or what is really a “slow genocide”) in the case of Gaza. One can argue that Israel is winning its conquest for control over the land. But it has also condemned the Israeli people to endless violence and war, stress, hatred, forced military training and service, and the erosion of their empathy and souls. It has made the entire Israeli population pathological. That Israeli youth now mostly identify as “right wing” is proof. (Adkins 2019) Young people are supposed to be the most idealistic and most desirous for peace. Not anymore. Now most of them have accepted a war mentality. So who has won? Only politicians and weapons manufacturers.
Or take acrimonious divorces. They not only cost thousands of dollars (sometimes millions) to pay complete strangers (lawyers), involve prolonged stress, anxiety, and other damaging psychological effects spanning years, but also have incredibly damaging effects on any children involved. Acrimonious divorces cause not just emotional and psychological problems for the child, but also physical problems, involving weakened immune systems. (Allen 2017; Mooney 2009) So no matter who “wins”, in reality, everyone loses.
What all these examples and situations also have in common is that blaming is not helpful. Not only is it not helpful, but it often backfires and exposes the blamer as the aggressor, the instigator, and the guilty party. (Just like with Amber Heard, and almost every conflict involving Israel, the U.S., and Western Europe.) Furthermore, life is not black and white. Every side has its positive and negative attributes, each side makes mistakes, each side is flawed, and each side has contributed to the conflict in some way. That's part of being human. But when it comes to making peace, blame is not helpful. You can say this about Israelis and Palestinians, Ukrainians and Russians, estranged friends, and divorcing husbands and wives. The question is one of peace, of ending the violence, of stopping things from getting worse, and giving a chance for everyone to live well. Of not digging a deeper hole for yourself. Of getting that monkey off your back. But as long as one side remains stubbornly attached to the blame game, then conflict and violence will continue.
So why do people routinely make things worse? Why do people avoid negotiating? Why do people dig themselves deeper and deeper holes? Well, unlike pandas and all other animals, and the many peaceful human cultures which have existed, civilized humans unfortunately have very fragile egos that are easily hurt, and very difficult to soothe.
Generally, the refusal to negotiate stems from a few basic scenarios, all rooted in some form of conquest. Sometimes, there is simply the desire to conquer land and resources (the Israeli government and the U.S. government are good examples). This can often be traced to an attempt at ego satisfaction and/or revenge. In foreign policy, ego satisfaction is often about winning re-election, getting votes, establishing a “legacy”, or “looking tough”. And often aggression is used to cover up the aggressors's own crimes. There's nothing like a war to distract citizens from the crimes of their leader. We see this frequently. Again, the extremely corrupt leaders of the U.S. and Israel are perfect examples of this. (Horovitz 2022; “Israel's” 2018)
Similarly, the reasons for acrimonious divorces and being estranged from family or friends are always ego satisfaction (soothing a hurt ego) and revenge. One side is angry at the other, they hate each other, they blame the other, they want revenge on the other. They continue to dream of filling your smoothie with horse laxatives. They can't let go of the past and they hold onto the pain forever. There's no rational thinking involved, and no self-reflection. But hurt feelings and painful emotions take a long time to heal, and will only heal if given the chance.
In fact, for the aggressor, the only “disadvantages” to negotiation are that there is no “winner”. After all, the aggressor is the aggressor in order to try to win something. To meet their emotional needs through conquest over the other. They're in a position where they believe they can win. Negotiation would mean that there is no more ego satisfaction, further conquest is ended, and further revenge is ended. Thus, the disadvantages are only in terms of satisfying the ego. But unfortunately, that is usually why aggressors refuse to negotiate. Negotiation would be a sign of weakness. To not take what they feel they can take would make them feel like a loser. This is very unfortunate, because there's a high price to be paid. Or, as Eckhart Tolle put it:
Every ego wants to be special. If it can’t be special by being superior to others, it’s also quite happy with being especially miserable. (Winfrey 2008)
And that's generally the result of an out-of-control ego: misery.
On the other hand, there are many advantages to negotiation. Above all, the end of hostilities means that both sides walk away. You can also call this “cutting your losses”. Cutting our losses is often an excellent strategy. One side stops trying to conquer the other. The other makes no attempt at revenge. They stop trying to hurt the other. They stop trying to take from the other. They stop concocting plans involving horse laxatives. This means that people can heal. This means that there will be peace of mind. This means there will be some semblance of closure. This means one less burden. It means a weight lifted off our shoulders. This means that things can get better. They can carry on like pandas, munching away on bamboo leaves, immersed in living now, without holding grudges. But above all, and most important, negotiation means that things will not get worse. Things will not get worse is a very good outcome! And often, negotiation yields other beneficial results which otherwise would have never been possible through ongoing conflict.
In international relations, ending hostilities limits the scope and possibility of “blowback” - the unintended harmful consequences of aggression. The fact is, when there's aggression, there will be blowback, which is essentially Newton's Third Law of Motion: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." (Don't you remember high school physics?) For example, the rise of extremist terrorist groups was born out of the violence and destruction that aggressive governments created. Examples of blowback include Al-Qaeda, which resulted from the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, or Iran's current hard right religious leadership resulting from the 1953 CIA-sponsored coup against Prime Minister Mosaddegh. A classic case of blowback is the entire “War on Terror,” which has only reinforced and promoted the growth of extremist groups around the world, making the risk of terrorism much, much higher than before, thus making the “War on Terror” a complete failure. (But one which makes weapons manufacturers billions of dollars.)
And just as in global politics, Newton's Third Law applies to interpersonal relations as well. Your violence will result in blowback. But on the bright side, negotiating an end to hostilities (such as an acrimonious divorce) means that you can end any chances of blowback and you can get on with your life. You can limit the emotional and psychological effects of the failed relationship and try to heal. At a minimum, things will not get worse.
The fact is, there are steep prices to be paid for any perceived victory. While the Europeans succeeded in stealing the Americas from the indigenous people, it came at the price of genocide and slavery, which is why the U.S. has never known peace, had a disastrous Civil War, and is now approaching another civil war. The fact that 45,000 people currently die from guns each year is an accurate reflection of the high price to be paid for the European conquest of the Americas. (Gramlich 2022)
World War One is probably the greatest military pyrrhic victory of all. While the Allied Powers defeated Germany, it crippled Britain financially, brought an end to the British Empire, and destroyed the French economy and much of the French countryside. On top of that, the “victory” cost the Allied Powers more than six million lives and thirteen million injuries, with six million imprisoned or missing soldiers. And finally, the terms of the Treaty of Versailles were so harsh on Germany that it all but guaranteed that there would be a second World War, which became the deadliest conflict in human history, killing eighty-five million people and injuring and traumatizing hundreds of millions more. So who won? (Again, only the elite and weapons manufacturers.)
But don't let these military pyrrhic victories fool you into thinking that it only happens to armies and nation-states. It happens to people on an interpersonal level all the time. Trying to defeat another person or to get revenge always comes with a very high price. Yet the option is always there to prevent further costs and prevent the situation from becoming worse. It's just usually the harder choice. Just like it's very difficult for gamblers to walk away from the casino, or for former Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to resist taking a bribe, or for your aunt to resist squeezing your cheeks every time she sees you. It takes enormous self control. Negotiating in good faith requires the understanding that otherwise things will only get worse.
On a psychological and emotional level, the failure to negotiate further erodes a person's soul. It perpetuates an endless, deep dissatisfaction, because revenge can never and will never bring happiness. No amount of conquest can bring a person contentedness or wisdom. No amount of money can bring peace to a person's heart. Personal growth is prevented, since growth requires self-reflection and humility, and the acknowledgment of one's own mistakes, flaws, culpability, and contributions to the conflict. If there was self-reflection and humility, then there would be no desire for revenge. If there was self-reflection and humility, there would have been negotiation.
But if the advantages of negotiating aren't enough to convince you, then the negative consequences of refusing to negotiate should be motivating. Essentially things will get much, much worse for you. Think again of any war, of the current NATO proxy war against Russia, of the Israel-Palestine conflict, or of the Depp-Heard case. Above all, the consequences of not negotiating almost always include one or more of the following:
Children are always the one to suffer the most from war, whether on the battlefield, in the courtroom, at Disney World, or at home. Starting a war is bad enough. But even after that mistake, adults can still stop the war from continuing and from causing more destruction and more trauma. That requires diplomacy and negotiating in good faith.
For my own part, I consider myself like the panda. Normally peaceful, with no malicious intent. In fact, most people are like this. But if threatened or cornered, I would, like the panda, use any defensive measures necessary. And once I feel safe again, I would, just like the panda, carry on as before, peaceful, eating and napping, and with no ill will, and no desires for revenge. I'm not a vengeful kind of guy. That seems to me to be a good approach to life, and the way most people behave.
Ultimately, the desire for conquest or revenge or ego satisfaction always exacts a high price for everyone, making a real victory impossible. The biggest myth is that there is a victor in any war (besides the elite, who are the only ones to ever gain from any war.) Don't be a Ukraine-Russia, or a U.S.-Vietnam, or an Israel-Palestine, or a Depp-Heard.
In the final analysis, there is no winning; there is only losing. As the military computer Joshua in the 1983 film WarGames says, "The only winning move is not to play."
People just want to be left alone. So you have to ask yourself, which panda do you want to see?
Put those horse laxatives away.
You see, it's civilization which is all about making things worse. Civilizations love conflict, and the more, the better. There has never been, and will never be, a peaceful civilization. For instance, among civilized humans, nearly all conflict is a form of conquest. Open any history textbook, and that's all you find. One nation tries to take land and resources from another. One nation tries to destroy another. One brain-damaged king tries to hump the leg of another brain-damaged king. Or just walk down the street and look around. One business tries to shut down a competing business. One person has to prove the other person wrong. One person has to ruin another's reputation. One person steals the other person's pet turtle. Conquest. That's why our culture is entirely focused on the idea of winners and losers. In civilization – especially industrial civilization – all relationships have been converted into a form of market transaction, or more aptly a military transaction, in which there is a winner and loser. Someone is profiting off someone else. Someone is exploiting someone else. Someone is gaining at the expense of others. Someone is conquering someone else. My team defeats your team.
The problem is, the idea of winner and loser is very misleading. In reality, the winner always loses, too. The winner just loses in different ways to the “loser”, which is why it's easy to miss. There's a reason why human cultures actively and purposely minimized competition during our two million years on Earth. Competition is a pathology. Like greed, selfishness, and arrogance, the idea of winners and losers was always seen to cause conflict and to make peaceful relations impossible. Competitiveness is much-exalted in our society, yet it really is the desire for conquest, and, like everything else in civilization, it's not healthy.
A healthy culture would be one that minimized conflict. It would be one which minimized competition and minimized the exploitation of others. It would be one which does not celebrate competitiveness, arrogance, greed, or conquest. It would be one which promoted dialogue and understanding. It would be one with minimal hierarchy. It would be a culture which stressed the need for diplomacy, negotiation, and other non-violent methods of conflict resolution. (Fry 2003, 2009, 2015) If you think this is just a silly dream of an unshaven tree hugger, consider that some cultures, such as the Mardu Aborigines of Australia - didn't even have a word for war. (Fry 2012)
In any conflict, the failure to negotiate, settle, or make peace almost always results in worse outcomes – especially for the side which refuses to negotiate.
Take the Ukraine today. The Ukrainian government's refusal to negotiate with Russia is condemning the country to a prolonged war in which the Ukrainian people will be the big loser – and they have no chance of ever defeating Russia. Their reliance on Western weapons to continue to attack Russian forces only assures more destruction of their own cities and infrastructure. An estimated 100-200 Ukrainian troops are already being killed each day. (Sabbagh 2022) Is it really worth it? On the other hand, Russia has long made clear – dating back to 1990 – that Ukraine's admission to NATO would not be tolerated. The Ukraine government and its Western backers are the real aggressors, crossing a known red-line. It was always known that Ukraine's admission to NATO would be considered an act of war. The Ukraine military was also shelling the Donbass 2,000 times a day before Russia entered the country, and had already killed 14,000 people in the preceding eight years. (Which also backs up a similar point that the side that first appears to be the “victim” is often the aggressor.) And from the beginning, Russia has laid out its terms for the end of the war – a good starting point for negotiations. Putin just recently repeated his desire for negotiations, adding that “those who refuse to do so should know that the longer it lasts the more difficult it will be for them to make a deal with us.” (“Putin” 2022) And he's absolutely correct. The government of Ukraine could end the conflict today – through negotiation. Instead, it begs for weapons and is planning on raising a “one-million person” army to prolong the war for years. (McGarvey 2022) The big loser in all this is already the Ukrainian people.
Counterintuitively, as in the case of the Ukraine, often it's the aggressor who gets more than they bargain for. The recent Johnny Depp-Amber Heard defamation lawsuits started when Heard accused Depp of domestic abuse. This backfired on her. Because of the accusation, she was the one exposed in the recent trial as an unstable, violent abuser and a highly deceitful person, the trial destroyed her reputation, and likely damaged her future in Hollywood. The lawsuit also cost her millions of dollars, and she is reportedly unable to pay the ten million dollars she now owes Depp.
One reason why aggressors get more than they bargain for is that those on the defensive will use any and all means to defend themselves. Think again of Russia's response to NATO aggression. Or think of pandas. Not just because it's always nice to think of pandas, but if you cornered a cute and cuddly panda, that panda would maul you to defend itself. This really did happen. A visitor to a zoo in China climbed into the panda enclosure and approached the panda. The normally very peaceful panda felt threatened and mauled the person. Once the man was removed from the enclosure, the panda carried on as before, peacefully eating bamboo leaves, with no desire for revenge against the man, and holding no grudges. (“Panda” 2008)
But you could choose just about any animal to demonstrate this effect. Animals generally don't seek revenge and don't hold grudges (except perhaps those held in captivity – see Hribal 2011). They don't have fragile egos that need to be constantly soothed. They just want to nap and eat. But if you corner them, or get in their space, they'll lash out using everything they've got. Think of a rattlesnake. Most people hate snakes, but hear me out. I consider rattlesnakes one of the best of all poisonous snakes. First of all, they mind their own business. They're not aggressive and they don't come after people (unlike math teachers). Even more, they're very patient and thoughtful. They use their rattle to warn you to move away. They'll give you plenty of time to figure it out, too (in case you're as slow as you are during a math test). They don't want to waste their venom on you, but if you keep approaching, only then will they bite.
The animals teach us a good lesson. Animals, just like most people, want to be left alone. And contrary to the many misleading nature documentaries which only focus on the infrequent dramatic moments in animals' lives, animals – even predators – are quite peaceful. As Douglas Fry writes:
Obviously, humans have the capacity to engage in war, but a growing body of studies on animals and humans suggests that nature is less violent than commonly has been assumed. (Fry 2012)
But if we're aggressive towards animals, they'll be aggressive back. And it will be painful. So it really is up to us, which animal behavior we want to see. Do you want the cute and cuddly panda? Or do you want the angry, mauling-your-face-off panda? The recent number of people getting mauled by bison in Yellowstone National Park is further proof that animals just want to be left alone, and some people who disregard that end up paying the price. (Rogers 2022)
In global politics, we often see how aggression backfires. Various U.S. economic moves against China only backfire and hurt the U.S. economy. The current NATO proxy war against Russia has caused oil shortages, higher oil prices, higher food prices, and global inflation – including for the U.S. and Western Europe, the aggressors. The U.S. invaded Vietnam for no good reason and was so sure of itself and its superior strength, only to get its ass kicked by the guerrilla tactics of the Viet Cong. It's not like the North Vietnamese were sitting around dreaming of killing Americans and hoping the U.S. would invade. They were minding their own business. In the end, American soldiers (and their families) paid an enormous price in terms of being physically injured, crippled, and psychologically traumatized. (Hedges 2003, 2014) Just as the Soviet Union was beaten out of Afghanistan by the Mujahideen, also reliant on guerrilla tactics. Soviet soldiers and their families also paid an enormous price in terms of being physically injured, crippled, and psychologically traumatized. What guerrilla movements around the world have demonstrated, in fact, is that in self-defense, smaller and weaker forces can topple larger and stronger forces (the aggressors), or at least inflict such heavy losses as to make any claims to victory a pyrrhic victory.
But generally, both sides will always lose from a failure to negotiate - though again, they will lose in different ways.
Israel's refusal to negotiate - in good faith - with the Palestinians has made life extremely difficult – and a humanitarian disaster (or what is really a “slow genocide”) in the case of Gaza. One can argue that Israel is winning its conquest for control over the land. But it has also condemned the Israeli people to endless violence and war, stress, hatred, forced military training and service, and the erosion of their empathy and souls. It has made the entire Israeli population pathological. That Israeli youth now mostly identify as “right wing” is proof. (Adkins 2019) Young people are supposed to be the most idealistic and most desirous for peace. Not anymore. Now most of them have accepted a war mentality. So who has won? Only politicians and weapons manufacturers.
Or take acrimonious divorces. They not only cost thousands of dollars (sometimes millions) to pay complete strangers (lawyers), involve prolonged stress, anxiety, and other damaging psychological effects spanning years, but also have incredibly damaging effects on any children involved. Acrimonious divorces cause not just emotional and psychological problems for the child, but also physical problems, involving weakened immune systems. (Allen 2017; Mooney 2009) So no matter who “wins”, in reality, everyone loses.
What all these examples and situations also have in common is that blaming is not helpful. Not only is it not helpful, but it often backfires and exposes the blamer as the aggressor, the instigator, and the guilty party. (Just like with Amber Heard, and almost every conflict involving Israel, the U.S., and Western Europe.) Furthermore, life is not black and white. Every side has its positive and negative attributes, each side makes mistakes, each side is flawed, and each side has contributed to the conflict in some way. That's part of being human. But when it comes to making peace, blame is not helpful. You can say this about Israelis and Palestinians, Ukrainians and Russians, estranged friends, and divorcing husbands and wives. The question is one of peace, of ending the violence, of stopping things from getting worse, and giving a chance for everyone to live well. Of not digging a deeper hole for yourself. Of getting that monkey off your back. But as long as one side remains stubbornly attached to the blame game, then conflict and violence will continue.
So why do people routinely make things worse? Why do people avoid negotiating? Why do people dig themselves deeper and deeper holes? Well, unlike pandas and all other animals, and the many peaceful human cultures which have existed, civilized humans unfortunately have very fragile egos that are easily hurt, and very difficult to soothe.
Generally, the refusal to negotiate stems from a few basic scenarios, all rooted in some form of conquest. Sometimes, there is simply the desire to conquer land and resources (the Israeli government and the U.S. government are good examples). This can often be traced to an attempt at ego satisfaction and/or revenge. In foreign policy, ego satisfaction is often about winning re-election, getting votes, establishing a “legacy”, or “looking tough”. And often aggression is used to cover up the aggressors's own crimes. There's nothing like a war to distract citizens from the crimes of their leader. We see this frequently. Again, the extremely corrupt leaders of the U.S. and Israel are perfect examples of this. (Horovitz 2022; “Israel's” 2018)
Similarly, the reasons for acrimonious divorces and being estranged from family or friends are always ego satisfaction (soothing a hurt ego) and revenge. One side is angry at the other, they hate each other, they blame the other, they want revenge on the other. They continue to dream of filling your smoothie with horse laxatives. They can't let go of the past and they hold onto the pain forever. There's no rational thinking involved, and no self-reflection. But hurt feelings and painful emotions take a long time to heal, and will only heal if given the chance.
In fact, for the aggressor, the only “disadvantages” to negotiation are that there is no “winner”. After all, the aggressor is the aggressor in order to try to win something. To meet their emotional needs through conquest over the other. They're in a position where they believe they can win. Negotiation would mean that there is no more ego satisfaction, further conquest is ended, and further revenge is ended. Thus, the disadvantages are only in terms of satisfying the ego. But unfortunately, that is usually why aggressors refuse to negotiate. Negotiation would be a sign of weakness. To not take what they feel they can take would make them feel like a loser. This is very unfortunate, because there's a high price to be paid. Or, as Eckhart Tolle put it:
Every ego wants to be special. If it can’t be special by being superior to others, it’s also quite happy with being especially miserable. (Winfrey 2008)
And that's generally the result of an out-of-control ego: misery.
On the other hand, there are many advantages to negotiation. Above all, the end of hostilities means that both sides walk away. You can also call this “cutting your losses”. Cutting our losses is often an excellent strategy. One side stops trying to conquer the other. The other makes no attempt at revenge. They stop trying to hurt the other. They stop trying to take from the other. They stop concocting plans involving horse laxatives. This means that people can heal. This means that there will be peace of mind. This means there will be some semblance of closure. This means one less burden. It means a weight lifted off our shoulders. This means that things can get better. They can carry on like pandas, munching away on bamboo leaves, immersed in living now, without holding grudges. But above all, and most important, negotiation means that things will not get worse. Things will not get worse is a very good outcome! And often, negotiation yields other beneficial results which otherwise would have never been possible through ongoing conflict.
In international relations, ending hostilities limits the scope and possibility of “blowback” - the unintended harmful consequences of aggression. The fact is, when there's aggression, there will be blowback, which is essentially Newton's Third Law of Motion: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." (Don't you remember high school physics?) For example, the rise of extremist terrorist groups was born out of the violence and destruction that aggressive governments created. Examples of blowback include Al-Qaeda, which resulted from the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, or Iran's current hard right religious leadership resulting from the 1953 CIA-sponsored coup against Prime Minister Mosaddegh. A classic case of blowback is the entire “War on Terror,” which has only reinforced and promoted the growth of extremist groups around the world, making the risk of terrorism much, much higher than before, thus making the “War on Terror” a complete failure. (But one which makes weapons manufacturers billions of dollars.)
And just as in global politics, Newton's Third Law applies to interpersonal relations as well. Your violence will result in blowback. But on the bright side, negotiating an end to hostilities (such as an acrimonious divorce) means that you can end any chances of blowback and you can get on with your life. You can limit the emotional and psychological effects of the failed relationship and try to heal. At a minimum, things will not get worse.
The fact is, there are steep prices to be paid for any perceived victory. While the Europeans succeeded in stealing the Americas from the indigenous people, it came at the price of genocide and slavery, which is why the U.S. has never known peace, had a disastrous Civil War, and is now approaching another civil war. The fact that 45,000 people currently die from guns each year is an accurate reflection of the high price to be paid for the European conquest of the Americas. (Gramlich 2022)
World War One is probably the greatest military pyrrhic victory of all. While the Allied Powers defeated Germany, it crippled Britain financially, brought an end to the British Empire, and destroyed the French economy and much of the French countryside. On top of that, the “victory” cost the Allied Powers more than six million lives and thirteen million injuries, with six million imprisoned or missing soldiers. And finally, the terms of the Treaty of Versailles were so harsh on Germany that it all but guaranteed that there would be a second World War, which became the deadliest conflict in human history, killing eighty-five million people and injuring and traumatizing hundreds of millions more. So who won? (Again, only the elite and weapons manufacturers.)
But don't let these military pyrrhic victories fool you into thinking that it only happens to armies and nation-states. It happens to people on an interpersonal level all the time. Trying to defeat another person or to get revenge always comes with a very high price. Yet the option is always there to prevent further costs and prevent the situation from becoming worse. It's just usually the harder choice. Just like it's very difficult for gamblers to walk away from the casino, or for former Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to resist taking a bribe, or for your aunt to resist squeezing your cheeks every time she sees you. It takes enormous self control. Negotiating in good faith requires the understanding that otherwise things will only get worse.
On a psychological and emotional level, the failure to negotiate further erodes a person's soul. It perpetuates an endless, deep dissatisfaction, because revenge can never and will never bring happiness. No amount of conquest can bring a person contentedness or wisdom. No amount of money can bring peace to a person's heart. Personal growth is prevented, since growth requires self-reflection and humility, and the acknowledgment of one's own mistakes, flaws, culpability, and contributions to the conflict. If there was self-reflection and humility, then there would be no desire for revenge. If there was self-reflection and humility, there would have been negotiation.
But if the advantages of negotiating aren't enough to convince you, then the negative consequences of refusing to negotiate should be motivating. Essentially things will get much, much worse for you. Think again of any war, of the current NATO proxy war against Russia, of the Israel-Palestine conflict, or of the Depp-Heard case. Above all, the consequences of not negotiating almost always include one or more of the following:
- That the two parties will be bound together in an endless spiral of violence (psychological and/or physical) for years and years
- Always living with the fear of surprise attacks from the other side, including unforeseen and highly-damaging reprisals that will have enormous costs
- Never having closure and never having peace of mind
- Unless you're a saint, any matter involving the courts raises the risk of your own misdeeds and potentially criminal behavior being exposed and investigated
- Your children are guaranteed to suffer more, and they will blame you, since it could have been avoided
Children are always the one to suffer the most from war, whether on the battlefield, in the courtroom, at Disney World, or at home. Starting a war is bad enough. But even after that mistake, adults can still stop the war from continuing and from causing more destruction and more trauma. That requires diplomacy and negotiating in good faith.
For my own part, I consider myself like the panda. Normally peaceful, with no malicious intent. In fact, most people are like this. But if threatened or cornered, I would, like the panda, use any defensive measures necessary. And once I feel safe again, I would, just like the panda, carry on as before, peaceful, eating and napping, and with no ill will, and no desires for revenge. I'm not a vengeful kind of guy. That seems to me to be a good approach to life, and the way most people behave.
Ultimately, the desire for conquest or revenge or ego satisfaction always exacts a high price for everyone, making a real victory impossible. The biggest myth is that there is a victor in any war (besides the elite, who are the only ones to ever gain from any war.) Don't be a Ukraine-Russia, or a U.S.-Vietnam, or an Israel-Palestine, or a Depp-Heard.
In the final analysis, there is no winning; there is only losing. As the military computer Joshua in the 1983 film WarGames says, "The only winning move is not to play."
People just want to be left alone. So you have to ask yourself, which panda do you want to see?
Put those horse laxatives away.
References and Further Reading
Adkins, Laura and Sales, Ben. (2019 April 12). “Why younger Israelis are trending towards the Right.” Israel National News. Retrieved from https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/261734
Allen, Victoria. (2017 June 5). “Bad divorces can damage a child's immune system for life: Adults are 3 TIMES more likely to have a cold if their parents had a painful break-up.” The Daily Mail. Retrieved from https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4573776/Bad-divorces-damage-child-s-immune-life.html
Balmforth, Tom. (2022 February 18). “Russia voices alarm over sharp increase of Donbass shelling.” Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-sharp-increase-shelling-donbass-is-alarming-2022-02-18/
Coleman, Peter. (2021). The Way Out: How to Overcome Toxic Polarization. Columbia University Press.
Dawson, Bethany. (2022 June 11). “Cases of desertion are growing among Ukrainian forces suffering significant losses in Russia's artillery onslaught, report says.” Business Insider. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-troops-deserting-russias-artillery-onslaught-takes-toll-report-says-2022-6
Ehrlich, Paul, Sagan, Carl, and Kennedy, Donald. (1985). The Cold and the Dark: The World After Nuclear War. W.W. Norton & Company.
Fry, Douglas. (2009). Beyond War: The Human Potential for Peace. Oxford University Press.
Fry, Douglas. (2003). Keeping the Peace: Conflict Resolution and Peaceful Societies Around the World. Routledge.
Fry, Douglas. (2012). “Life Without War.” Science: 336, 879. Retrieved from https://peaceispatriotic.org/articles/PeaceRelatedStructures.18May2012.pdf
Fry, Douglas. (2015). War, Peace, and Human Nature: The Convergence of Evolutionary and Cultural Views. Oxford University Press.
Gramlich, John. (2022 February 3). “What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.” PEW Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
Hedges, Chris. (2014). War Is a Force that Gives Us Meaning. PublicAffairs.
Hedges, Chris. (2003). What Every Person Should Know About War. Free Press.
Horovitz, David. (2022 January 27). “Israel’s deepening slide into corruption.” The Times of Israel. Retrieved from https://www.timesofisrael.com/israels-deepening-slide-into-corruption/
Hribal, Jason. (2011). Fear of the Animal Planet: The Hidden History of Animal Resistance. AK Press.
“Israel’s leaders and corruption allegations.” (2018 February 14). Al-Jazeera. Retrieved from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/2/14/israels-leaders-and-corruption-allegations
Lancaster, Patrick. (2022 February 27). “Donbas People Describe Living under Kiev-US-NATO Shelling for 8 years.” Veterans Today. Retrieved from https://www.veteranstoday.com/2022/02/27/donbas-people-describe-living-under-kiev-us-nato-shelling-for-8-years/
Martin, Kevin, and Wolf, Brad. (2022 July 8). “The Illusion of Military Dominance.” Counterpunch. Retrieved from https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/07/08/the-illusion-of-military-dominance/
McGarvey, Emily. (2022 July 11). “Ukraine aims to amass 'million-strong army' to fight Russia, says defence minister.” BBC News. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62118953
Mooney, Ann, Oliver, Chris, and Smith, Marjorie. (2009 June). “Impact of Family Breakdown on Children’s Well-Being Evidence Review.” University of London. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/4160412.pdf
“Panda attacks man in Chinese zoo.” (2008 November 22). BBC. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7743748.stm
“Putin to Ukraine: Russia has barely started its action.” (2022 July 7). The Associated Press. Retrieved from https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/putin-ukraine-russia-barely-started-action-86388540
Ripley, Amanda. (2021). High Conflict: Why We Get Trapped and How We Get Out. Simon & Schuster.
Rogers, Linda. (2022 July 8). “Why Are So Many Tourists Getting Attacked by Bison at Yellowstone?” Retrieved from https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/why-are-so-many-tourists-getting-attacked-by-bison-at-yellowstone/ar-AAZmFU3
Sabbagh, Dan. (2022 June 10). “Ukraine’s high casualty rate could bring war to tipping point.” The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/10/ukraine-casualty-rate-russia-war-tipping-point
Schoppert, Stephanie. (2016 October 16). “Ten Terrible Decisions Made By World Leaders Throughout History.” History Collection. Retrieved from https://historycollection.com/10-terrible-decisions-made-world-leaders-throughout-history/
Shulz, Kathryn. (2011). Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error. Ecco.
Tavris, Carol and Aronson, Elliot. (2020). Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions and Hurtful Acts. Pinter & Martin Ltd.
Winfrey, Oprah. (2008 May). "Oprah Talks to Eckhart Tolle." O, The Oprah Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.oprah.com/spirit/oprah-talks-to-eckhart-tolle/all