Hey, Vsauce. Michael here. Love and war are exactly alike. It is lawful to use tricks and slights to obtain a
desired end. But is all fair in love and war? That's a good question, let's pencil it in for this episode. Of course, pencil is not permanent. It can
be erased. It's not like whatever I write down is
being chiseled into granite. But pencil lead is made out of carbon atoms organised into a structure called
graphite - a nonmetallic mineral with some metallic
properties found naturally in rocks, which means things written in
pencil, though erasable, are still technically
written in stone. In video games if the bad guys really wanted to stop
you, why did they walk around in such predictable patterns? Wouldn't their chances be better if they
just came right at you? There's a great name for this logic: "mook chivalry". It's as if there's a sort of unwritten Geneva Convention that applies
to fictional baddies that respects not reality, or what would
make sense, but instead the higher purpose of fun, and a good story. But in real life we aren't that much different from the
mooks. We construct voluntary obstacles in the
way of even honourable goals, like truth, justice, or right over wrong. Not all is fair in love and war. And it's the exceptions
that make us who we are. Torturing your enemies to get information from them, to demoralise them, or just for fun has been a "might is right" part of war since war began. But in the second half of the 19th
century, Henry Dunant, the founder of the Red Cross organized
an official moral code of warfare - The Geneva Conventions, that
today across it's now 4 conventions has been
agreed to be followed by 196 nations. And since then various other customs, codes and
principles have been established totaling up into what may now be called
the "Rules of war". Their enforcement is handled
by regional, national and international powers. Of course, an unconcerned force would simply ignore
these rules because the quickest route to victory is
the one full of unfair advantages, but nonetheless we treasure them. Try to, at least. And
believe that all others should. The values they recognise are telling. Things unrelated to military
necessity, or valued in a sense, more greatly than
immediate victory are protected. For instance, The
Environmental Modification Convention prohibits controlling the weather and
using the weather as a weapon against your
opponents. Before the convention that happened. For example, during
Operation Popeye US airplanes seeded rain clouds over
Vietnam and successfully extended the monsoon
season by more than a month, increasing rainfall by 30 percent - a move
that made enemy road surfaces muddy, blocked by landslides, washed out, much less passable. The laws of war protect
certain symbols. Parties or infrastructures bearing
symbols that indicate there are only there to help, or are neutral,
culturally important buildings that should be protected for posterity are off limits. It's a violation of the laws of war to attack such targets or to pretend to
be such targets if your intentions are otherwise. That is called perfidy. A kind of
deception that involves pretending to act fairly and honestly to
invite the confidence of an adversary, only to then take advantage of that
trust, betray it and kill, injure or capture. If you do one of those three things
while pretending to be dead or injured or surrendered or civilian or
a non-combatant, well, that's a violation of the rules of war. Espionage is allowed. But if caught, you can be prosecuted and punished. Whereas if you
are a lawful combatants on the other hand you're entitled to protection as an official
prisoner-of-war. Conditions like these reveal something
we desire to hold above quick vengeance: dignity and
respect. Both sides wish to be treated with that
and uphold the bargain. Athletes agreed
to play fair, to avoid prohibited things, even
technically safe and otherwise legal things that would
nonetheless give them an unfair advantage. They do this because
the spirit of the sport is more important to them then the quickest victory possible, sportsmanship. Likewise, a sort of "lovesmanship" exists in US court rooms. If the most sure-fire way of getting
the truth of someone's guilt involves spoiling a bond of love. Spousal
privilege says chill. Love is sacred. Truth will come second, find another way. So, if you are planning on committing crimes
in the US, and you need an accomplice, marry them. Your spouse can not be forced to testify
against you. There are different privileges applying
to other relations of yours, allowing them to
refuse to give evidence against you. These rules exist to honour
something that we deem, or like to deem, greater than easy victory.
You cannot travel faster than light. Or escape from a black hole. Or commit
perfidy in a time of war. Or cheat on your
significant other. That's usually considered unfair, but the final two aren't physical
limitations of matter. They are voluntary obstacles reflecting what we value. Whether we respect those
values, or not, is another story. And how we interpret what actions are over
the line and what aren't is a matter of judgment. We didn't get to
create protons or planets - they were already
here. But we do get to create judgments. We even named ourselves after that
ability. We call ourselves Homo sapiens. 'Homo'
meaning hummus - the soil, we are from the earth.
'Sapien' mean sapiens, the ability to make wise
judgments. Very few people would argue that all
truly is fair in love and war, but in love and war behaviours otherwise not acceptable can
be not only forgiven, but recommended. Reading messages not
meant for yourself, using disguises, even murder can be
downgraded to a crime of passion or lawful combat. But love and war put different things at
stake. And just because unfair things are
expected during love and war doesn't mean that within their
respective domains we prosecute or prohibit unfairness in the same way. Violating the law of war is a crime but there is no official law of love. You can prosecute someone for perfidy, or
desertion, or weaponising the weather, but you can't prosecute cupid for heartbreak. You can't have someone arrested for not
loving you back and you shouldn't call 911 if someone leaves you for someone else. You see, there is no Geneva Convention
for love. Furthermore, we often route for friends
or fictional characters who follow their
hearts, even if it means leaving someone we care less for - a minor character for instance - alone or
stranded at the altar. Does this mean that love is a better
excuse for bad behavior than war? Obviously not for criminal behaviour, but
otherwise? As far as authoritative powers and our
modern conception of love are concerned, war - its technologies and strategies are
human invention. Whereas love is a human condition. Love is like inertia or death - inevitable. A law of nature and blameless, if unkind. We legislate where a bomb can fall, where debris can fall and prosecute
those who violate those rulings. But we don't prosecute gravity for
making things fall. We support voluntary
restrictions on fair play in sports more - public etiquette. But the players in love's battlefield are blameless victims of their passion, even if those
passions are nonsensical. The heart has its
reasons, which reason knows nothing of. Deceiving
others, that is what the world calls a romance.
Maybe love has this power intrinsically or maybe we give it that power by
leaving so legally alone. But either way, broken bones are the domain of law. Broken hearts are the domain of 'aww', 'shucks', 'sorry'. And as always, thanks for watching.
Hey, does anyone know the name/link of the song playing from 6:00 to 8:50 in this video?
great instalment. worth the wait. :)