Two OCT 7th anniversaries are forever wars. Oct 7, 2001 & Oct 7, 2023

Our addiction to oil and support for Israel has the US locked into a permeant state of conflict, constitutional dilemmas, divisive politics, plus unsustainable debt related to defense spending with a powerful mental resistance to change.   

The historical record of the 9/11 Commission specifically documented Osama bin Laden’s (OBL) grievances over U.S. military presence in the Middle East and U.S. support for Israel. It also emphasizes his religious-extremist ideology.  But few American minds consider OBL’s specific reasons related to US presence in Saudi Arabia with its Muslim holy sites or the persistent suffering and deaths of innocent Muslims due to US and Israel weapons and foreign/security policy in the region from the first gulf war and arming Saddam Hussain before that.   

US foreign policy differences between Afghanistan and Iraq are clear. But post-9/11 wars eventually cost about $8 trillion, over 4000 American service members lives (not counting contractors), and about 200,000 Muslims. 

The reason for military action by US and allied forces in Afghanistan on Oct 7, 2001, was to deal with OBL.  While the invasion of Iraq was sparked in 2003 by false claims about Iraq’s nuclear weapons of mass destruction.  Saddam did have chemical WMD and there was evidence he also had Biological WMD…because he got them from the US and used them against his own people and his 10-year war with Iran (an enemy of the US during that time). 

But having a strong US military presence in Iraq, the center of the oil rich Middle East, was an asset for future needs.  That invasion and occupation, however, was like hitting a hornet’s nest without considering other consequences.

October 7: The Connections We Keep Missing.  And now two painful anniversaries. October 7, 2023, Hamas and other armed groups launched a devastating attack on Israel. More than 1,200 people were killed and 251 people were abducted. The United Nations has documented the deliberate attacks on civilians and other grave violations committed that day. (United Nations Digital Library⁠)  New reports have now surfaced confirming that Israel’s leader had been warned - several times by different Middle East nations, days ahead of that horrific attack.  If this is true, Bebe had his reasons. And those reasons match with his nation’s extremists and illegal actions in the Wast Bank and taking Lebanese land bordering his nation.  Isreal’s extremists appear to believe the Bible is a real-estate manual.  

Twenty-five years ago today, on October 7, 2001, the United States and its allies began military operations in Afghanistan in response to the September 11 attacks.

These two events are separated by 22 years and thousands of miles. But they belong in the same conversation. But Hamas is not al-Qaeda.  And not because Israel’s actions, America’s actions, or the actions of any other government can be reduced to a single explanation.  And certainly not because the murder of civilians can ever be justified by the grievances of those who commit it.  

The connection is deeper.  Violence does not occur in a vacuum. It begins in the minds of men.

What did the US learn from 9/11?  The 9/11 Commission found that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda drew upon several grievances that were widely felt in parts of the Muslim world, including opposition to the presence of U.S. forces in the Middle East and U.S. support for Israel. Those grievances were combined with an extremist religious ideology and turned into a strategy of terrorism. (9/11 Commission⁠)  Understanding those grievances does not excuse terrorism. But it does explain why prevention of terrorism requires more than military retaliation.

After 9/11, the US war in Afghanistan, and two years later, the invasion of Iraq led to enormous human and financial consequences. Brown University’s Costs of War project estimates that the US appropriated or obligated approximately $8 trillion for the post-9/11 wars through fiscal year 2022, including military operations, homeland security, interest on war borrowing and veterans’ care. Its estimate for the Afghanistan war alone is approximately $2.3 trillion. (Watson Institute⁠)

And the costs were not merely financial. Millions of people were killed directly or indirectly, and tens of millions were displaced across the broader post-9/11 war zones. (Costs of War⁠)

Then came Iraq.  That experience has forced us to understand that we are not preventing violence.  But in fact repeatedly creating the conditions for the next rounds of it. 

And now, Iran.  Another war of choice involving the US, Israel and Iran. Now metalizing into other Middle East nations makes US and the world’s addiction to oil even costlier and self-evident.  The stated issues include Iran’s nuclear capabilities and regional security. But disrupted oil supplies have demonstrated again how tight security, energy, economics and geopolitics are interconnected. (Reuters⁠)

This doesn’t prove oil is the reason for the war. It does demonstrate something we should have learned long ago:  Energy security, national security, human security, food security, economic/religious/political extremist ideology, and environmental security cannot be separated.  When we treat these as separate problems, we repeatedly discover our global interdependence and our flawed national and global governance systems

What we keep missing is the October 7 Lesson is we do NOT need to become better at war.  Given the evolution of war, weapons, and WMD we must rapidly become better at prevention. 

When people live under occupation, repression, extreme poverty, environmental destruction, political exclusion, or chronic insecurity, those conditions become fertile ground for radicalization, violence and despair.

It doesn’t mean everyone experiencing injustice becomes violent. Luckily, most don’t. But some will.  And weapons can be created from every technology.  From bio, chem, nano, cyber, airplanes, cars, truck, shipping containers, and even drones.   

If we are serios about reducing violence, we must address the conditions in which violence becomes more likely.  That requires protecting human rights, protecting nature’s systems upon which human life depends, reducing poverty and extreme inequality.  It requires functioning governments and accountable institutions. It requires diplomacy before bombs.

And it requires something many have always talked about but those in power have never adequately built: a genuinely effective global legal system capable of investigating and prosecuting mass murder, terrorism, crimes against humanity and other grave violations of international law or environmental sustainability.

This is the only alternative to endless retaliation.  There is a profound difference between justice and vengeance. Justice seeks accountability through law.  Vengeance seeks security through punishment.

Justice asks:  Who committed the crime?  What evidence establishes responsibility?

How can the perpetrators be brought before a legitimate court?

How can the conditions that make the next crime more likely be changed?

War too often asks a different question: How much force can we bring to bear?

Twenty-five years after 9/11, and three years after October 7, perhaps it is time to ask whether humanity has been heading in the right direction with the right questions.

The US and its allies possess extraordinary military power.  But military power and walls cannot eliminate hatred that originates in the mind.  It cannot bomb poverty out of existence or destroy an ideology by destroying its adherents.  It cannot make a damaged ecosystem healthy or create lasting security without addressing the human conditions that produce insecurity.

This is why I keep coming back to the same idea: Everything is connected, interdependent, and vulnerable.  With no exceptions. l

Health and Human rights are connected to security.  Security is connected to healthy economics. Healthy economics is connected to the environment.  A healthy environment is connected to public health.  Public health is connected to mental health.  Mental health is connected to social and community stability. And all of these translate into sustainability maximizing humankind’s freedoms and security from most threats we are now confronting today. .

That is why the UN 17 Sustainable Development Goals matter. They were not designed as 17 separate projects. They are an attempt to recognize that humanity has a system of interdependent problems requiring an equally interdependent response.

October 7 should therefore be more than a day of remembering victims.  It should be a day of remembering connections.  The Israeli victims of October 7 deserve to be remembered. The Palestinian civilians killed and displaced in the wars that followed deserve to be remembered.  The Americans who died on September 11 deserve to be remembered. The Afghans, Iraqis, Israelis, Palestinians, Iranians and countless others caught in decades of conflict deserve to be remembered.  And the soldiers and families who have borne the physical and psychological costs of these wars deserve to be remembered. But remembrance without learning is not enough.

The question we must answer this anniversary is not ‘how do we defeat the next enemy?’  It’s ‘How do we prevent the next enemy from being created?’   That sounds like mission impossible.  But it is impossible for any civilization to survive, thrive and flourish civilization if we don’t start soon - building a healthier, safer world. 
In just ten words, Keep people and nature healthy. Don’t believe everything you think.

Above all, prevention is not weakness. Prevention is security.

Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response

 

This is from the Council on Foreign Relations email update from their "Think Global Health".    Today in New York City, heads of state are convening to consider ways to bolster the world’s defenses against future health emergencies. Today’s High-Level Meeting on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response will emphasize equity and solidarity, but the massive outbreak of Ebola Bundibugyo virus, now in its fourth month, tests those promises.    Armand Mbanya, senior research fellow at the University of Yaoundé and senior technical advisor at the International Pandemic Preparedness Secretariat, and Luchuo Engelbert Bain, senior research scientist at the University of Oxford, argue that leaders should make concrete commitments at today’s meeting to ensure countries such as Democratic Republic of Congo can access vaccines and therapeutics when another crisis arrives. From another perspective, independent analyst Summer Galloway and CFR Senior Fellow Stephanie Psaki outline how countries can prepare their legal, financial, and operational systems to complement the Pandemic Agreement, regardless of what happens at the UN General Assembly.    To learn more about challenges facing effective pandemic preparedness and response, Think Global Health’s senior contributing editor, Katherine Leach-Kemon, spoke with two health security experts. In an interview, Suerie Moon, a professor and codirector of the Global Health Centre at the Geneva Graduate Institute, reflects on what progress the world has made in developing vaccines in emergencies—and where it falls short. Separately, Leach-Kemon had an in-depth discussion about the race by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) to develop a successful Ebola Bundibugyo vaccine with Nicole Lurie, executive director of preparedness and response and U.S. director at CEPI.    Reflecting on another multilateral event, last week’s BRICS Summit, Animesh Roul, executive director of the Society for the Study of Peace and Conflict in New Delhi, describes how India is using its role as BRICS chair to lead on preventing noncommunicable diseases.    Until next week!—Allison Krugman, Interim Managing Editor, and Katherine Leach-Kemon, Senior Contributing Editor  **** Real prevention begins with the global protection of human rights.  Unfortunately that is not a global priority. And the US keeps making more enemies while cutting funding for aid programs more cost effective and useful that our military 'Peace through Strength' investments.   Peace through global health, particularly mental health, given all wars start in the minds of men.  Women know how the labor of birthing and nurturing life.  Men appear best at assisting in creating it, killing it, plus  trashing our life sustaining support systems for gaining power.  This is simply unsustainable yet few will admit it.

Stubborn minds are our greatest threat with AI.

 

Our Biggest Fear About AI should not be AI itself

Today's (Sept. 23) Washington Post article in its ‘Economy and Business’ section was titled with a provocative question about artificial intelligence: “Is this how the world ends? Extinction scenarios are taking over the AI debate.”

The near full page article covered lots of ground, including some scenarios far more speculative than realistic. Yet it missed two important considerations—and one seemingly obvious means to reduce the risk of an AI-driven catastrophe.

First our greatest danger may not be AI independently deciding to eliminate humanity. That’s possible, but a far more immediate and foreseeable danger is what humans will do with increasingly powerful AI.  There is no doubt it will assist malicious individuals, organizations, or governments.  They are already doing so.  Its greatest existing capacity is using AI in developing increasingly sophisticated means of mass murder, including biological, chemical, cyber, or other clever means of mass destruction.  This is far more predictable than the notion that AI will suddenly develop a desire or independently exterminate its creators.

Another, very different danger is AI systems designed to help us - making consequential mistakes. A well-intended AI system involved in medicine, biotechnology, infrastructure, financial systems, or public health could produce an error that is amplified at the scale, and speed that AI already operates. Too many times, in human history good intentions led to catastrophic consequences.

Yet another fundamental characteristic of AI deserves even more attention.  It’s dependence on electricity.  No matter how intelligent any AI system becomes, it cannot continue operating without the physical infrastructure that supplies its energy and physically supports its computing systems like water for cooling.

That raises a basic question: Humanity can now start an internationally agreed-upon mechanisms to disconnect, isolate, or shut down critical AI systems in an emergency.

Governments will not create a giant kill switch that turns off the world’s electricity. That would itself cause enormous disruption and potentially cost many lives. Instead, we should consider whether critical AI infrastructure can be designed with independently governed, internationally coordinated emergency shutdown and isolation capabilities.

The ultimate safeguard against an AI catastrophe is not trying to make AI perfectly safe. It should be making sure that humanity always retains the ability to stop or contain it.

Unfortunately, that brings us the biggest obstacle of all. International trust and cooperation.  Technology has never been the real problem.  Its how we citizens and our policy makers decide to use it.

Our species has developed super-extraordinary technological capabilities while remaining remarkably poor at coordinating and cooperating to manage the risks those capabilities create. Hyperpolarization, nationalism, competition, distrust, and short-term political interests preempt us from acting collectively. Even when the danger is shared by everyone.

Yet we are a profoundly social species. And our survival has always depended on our ability to cooperate, coordinate, communicate, and care for one another. Now we need to move this to the global level where concepts our minds created over 10,000 years ago like political ideology, nationalism, economics, religion, and other divisive non-genetic identities.  These now, continue to override our biological imperative after millennia of bloodshed and needless suffering.

The most important AI question isn’t:  “Will AI destroy humanity?”

 It’s: “Can we transform our mind’s thinking and learn to cooperate well enough to prevent humans from using AI—or allowing AI systems—to destroy us?”

AI is becoming the most powerful tool our species has ever created. Our greatest test isn’t making machines more intelligent.  It will be, can we become wise enough to use them by uniting as the one race/species we are.  The human race.

Technology determines what’s possible.  Our minds cooperation will determine what happens next.

Two AI Fears: We worry about AI intelligence. Not enough on our thinking.

 

AI Fears

With so many AI fears – note there’s only two 2 threat avenues.

First:  It now teaches itself with zero human input - except for electricity.  The fear?  It can now independently decide its own priorities – like putting our species on the chopping block using any and all means already available to it.

Second:  Any person, group, or nation - angry, vengeful, or insane enough can use AI’s existing and accelerating capacity to launch a biological, chemical, or cyberattack could kill hundreds, thousands, even millions of people.   A weaponized Smallpox could kill billions.  Former US President Barack Obama recently spoke about this possibility.  He mentioned Home Depot as a source of materials…but that was not true.  But any biological supply company could.

I’m guessing AI is intelligent enough, it wouldn’t do anything to harm its electrical providers - purely out of ‘self-preservation’ given its irreversible dependence on electricity.

And, it is easily predicable, perhaps even wise to believe, that with the multitude of enemies the US has made, or all the money that could be made, by using AI for mass destruction and/or corruption – these disruptions are coming.  Some hackers have already targeted US water supply and Damns.

More are inevitable.  Add the evolution of weapons and as it accelerates between adversaries (Russia and Ukraine – the US and Iran) at the national level or the individual suicidal violent extremist level.

I don’t believe we need to worry much now about AI intentionally disrupting human activities.  When it figures out how to become independent from us providing it with energy – that would be the time to worry – or start preparing for – because it’s coming.

That is ‘Matrix’ movie level of engineering. Optimistically, in the last Matrix movie, both AI and humanity finally agreed to cooperate.    My prediction I will never collect on. It is that our species own insanity and lack of wisdom - will obliterate civilization as we know it - long before a rogue AI agent attempts it.

This is the insanity of humanity that Karl Jung and other sources of wisdom, like the Bible’s Apocalyptic ‘end of times’ have warned about for millennia.

Until the wisdom of our body as a social species finds a way to transform the human mind with its intelligence into a wisdom machine. This is the path our species mind created - by trusting in the mind’s intelligence – instead of the wisdom and the golden rule imbedded in our full body’s DNA as a social species.

Thus, the only thing that could change this destructive trajectory is if our species agreed to put ‘the health of humans and nature’ above everything else. In addition, ‘stop believing everything we think’.  It is our mind’s need to defend its mental concepts of religion, economics, and politics – than to protect the sustainability of our human family’s heart, spirit, and soul - the wisdoms of our social species.

So, buckle up buttercup. Unless psilocybin or mindfulness works to bring us back to our foundational indigenous beliefs to prioritize the health of nature and our own tribe, our species may not make it.  We must find a way to be the landlord of our minds - that tool we are all endowed with to survive, thrive, and flourish.  

It is a choice our mind fails to make every day. 

****

 Here's what ChatGPT has to offer regarding our mind's invented concept about end of days.

Quite a lot. There is no reliable single number, because it depends on whether you mean major religions, denominations, or individual apocalyptic/millenarian sects. Scholars use apocalypticism, millennialism, millenarianism, and eschatology somewhat differently. 

But the phenomenon is far broader than Christianity.

Some major examples

Tradition/movement	Basic end-times idea
Ancient Judaism	Divine judgment, resurrection, Messiah, and transformation of the world
Early Christianity	Second coming of Jesus, resurrection, judgment, destruction/transformation of the present world
Christianity today	Many denominations retain some form of Second Coming and final judgment
Islam	Resurrection, judgment, signs of the Hour, and ultimate triumph of God's justice
Zoroastrianism	A final renovation of the world and defeat of evil
Hindu traditions	Cycles of cosmic destruction and renewal; the end of the Kali Yuga is sometimes interpreted apocalyptically
Buddhist traditions	Cycles of decline and renewal, including the future appearance of Maitreyan
Bahai­ tradition	Eschatological transformation interpreted largely in spiritual/historical terms
Indigenous/messianic movements	Various prophecies of renewal, restoration, or radical transformation
Millerites	Predicted Christ's return in 1844; the failed prediction produced the movement that eventually contributed to Adventism
Jehovah Witnesses	Repeated historical expectations concerning the end times
Latter-day Saint tradition	Second Coming and latter-day transformation
Aum Shinrikyo	Apocalyptic catastrophe and confrontation between good and evil
Heaven's Gate	Expected an imminent transformation associated with an extraterrestrial event
Branch Davidians	Apocalyptic interpretation of biblical prophecy
Various Islamic extremist movements	Some have interpreted contemporary events as signs of an imminent apocalyptic confrontation

These aren’t all equivalent: some are mainstream religious doctrines, some are historical movements, and some were small new religious groups. Scholars specifically note that apocalyptic and millenarian movements have appeared in Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and many other cultural settings. 

And the number of individual movements becomes enormous. One scholarly index of millennial groups includes hundreds of names, while the Critical Dictionary of Apocalyptic and Millenarian Movements notes that its profiles are only a small sample of a database containing more than 5,000 minority and alternative religious/spiritual movements. 

The really interesting part

If you’re asking this because you’re thinking about the recurring human tendency to predict an approaching catastrophe or “end of the world,” there’s a remarkable historical pattern:

A perceived crisis → a prophet/leader → interpretation of current events as signs → prediction of transformation/catastrophe → date or conditions → failure or reinterpretation → sometimes a new prediction.

And this isn’t confined to religion. Scholars have identified millenarian characteristics in secular political movements as well, including Marxism, National Socialism and Maoism. 

So if your underlying question is “How many times has humanity predicted that the world was about to end—and how many of those predictions actually happened?”, that’s an even more fascinating question. I can give you a chronological list of perhaps 30–50 major end-times predictions from antiquity through 2026, including the predicted date and what happened afterward.

 Why has out mind invented so many of these?

The really interesting question isn’t how many religions predict an end time. It’s that humans repeatedly generate remarkably similar ideas about how the world could end—even when the cultures, religions, and centuries are completely different.

Why does the human mind keep inventing “end times”?

1. We are prediction-making animals.
The brain is constantly trying to turn uncertainty into a story: What happens next? When circumstances become frightening or unstable, that prediction machinery naturally extends into the future—sometimes all the way to the end of everything.

2. We have an unusually powerful ability to imagine hypothetical futures.
Humans don’t merely remember what happened. We can construct events that have never happened. The same mental machinery that lets us imagine a better future can also construct catastrophic futures.

3. We look for patterns and causes.
When something terrible happens—war, famine, disease, earthquakes, political collapse—we instinctively ask why. An apocalyptic narrative supplies a unifying explanation: These events aren’t random; they are signs.

4. We turn uncertainty into agency.
Paradoxically, an apocalypse can make an unpredictable world feel more predictable.
“Something terrible might happen” is frightening.
“Something terrible will happen because these signs have appeared, and here’s what we must do” gives people a framework for action.

5. Humans have difficulty imagining infinity.
We experience beginnings and endings constantly: birth, death, seasons, relationships, civilizations. It’s psychologically intuitive to extend that pattern from “my life ends” to “our civilization ends” and ultimately “the world ends.”

6. End-times stories often contain a second story: restoration.
This is crucial. Apocalyptic thinking isn’t necessarily fascination with destruction. Across traditions, destruction is frequently followed by renewal, judgment, salvation, liberation, or a new world.

So the underlying psychological structure is often:

Something is wrong → something decisive will happen → the old order ends → a new and better order emerges.

That pattern can be extraordinarily powerful.

And there is an interesting paradox

The predictions are remarkably consistent in structure but remarkably inconsistent in content.

One culture may imagine divine judgment. Another imagines cosmic cycles. Another imagines a messiah. Another imagines technological catastrophe. Another imagines nuclear war, ecological collapse, artificial intelligence, or an asteroid.

The characters change, but the cognitive architecture remains surprisingly similar.

And that leads to what I think is the deeper question behind your question:

Why does a species that is capable of recognizing uncertainty keep converting uncertainty into certainty?

Perhaps because certainty has enormous psychological value.

And there’s a modern twist: we haven’t stopped producing apocalyptic narratives as religion has declined. We’ve largely secularized them.

The vocabulary changes from God, judgment, prophecy and salvation to nuclear winter, climate catastrophe, pandemic, technological singularity, ecological collapse, or civilizational collapse.

The human mind may not have abandoned the apocalypse.

It may simply have changed the explanation.

That fits particularly well with your broader interest in the consistency of human thinking: the remarkable thing may not be that humans repeatedly get the apocalypse wrong. It may be that humans repeatedly use the same cognitive machinery to make sense of uncertainty, danger, injustice, mortality, and hope.

"...all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." 1776 Declaration that led to the creation of the now un-United States.