I have been particularly interested in symmetry lately. Maybe because it is a fascinating aspect of nature, or because I have been working hard on things related with symmetry in one or another way. Or just maybe because I had a great teacher that has always been attracted by it. Wherever it comes from, the constant search for symmetry has made me increasingly annoyed by a-symmetries arousing all around us lately.War is one such. I don't know if you have noticed but wars are becoming more and more asymmetric these days. We nomore have two sides, each fighting for a cause nor have we battles, where armies get to stand one against another. More and more we tend to have the "good" and the "bad", the "terrorists" and their "victims" and wars are made from a distance with bombs flying around and soldiers appearing only on TV. In another level of asymmetry, wars are, nowadays, more and more fought between superpowers and a bunch of ragged fanatics, (almost always long-bearded, almost always arabs, almost always muslim) with a few missiles that cannot even be fired properly.
Quite asymmetric don't you think?
Evenmore, the asymmetry once again rises in terms of the people affected. In the wars of our time, everyday people pay a wholy asymmetric load. Their fates are decided by powerful "coalitions of the brave" (or willing, peaceloving, torchbearers of democracy, you make your choice). Their houses are bombarded, their hospitals are bombarded, their works are bombarded, their bridges are bombarded. In an incomprehensibly asymmetric manner, the only ones who come out stronger after the phosporus-cluster-bomb-flare extravaganzas are always the ragged fanatics, initially considered to be the main enemy.
Quite unreasonable don't you think?
And it gets even worse when you stop and think a little more about it. What if the ragged fanatics were bombing the houses of the "brave" and the "willing"? What would happen if they bombed ambulances of the red cross right in the middle of the street? What if they repeatedly attacked a UN observatory? or used cluster bombs in densely populated areas? or killed 150 citizens for each one of their own to be taken hostage? What if we referred to their leadership as sovereign, their cause as just and their missile attacks as self-defense?
And what if we would be "brave" enough to stop it all? "Willing" enough to impose santions on everybody who crosses the line? "Democratic" enough to realize who is actually crossing it? "Just" enough to draw the line in the right place?
Quite reasonable don't you think?
But A-symmetry has been so deeply incorporated into our perception of simple facts that these questions do not even cross our minds. Instead of asking such questions, we have a list of answers already made up. War is always "war against terrorism", fighters unwilling to comply with new order are "dangerous haters of democracy", killed civilans are "colateral victims", attack is "self defense", defending your land may be an "act of terrorism".
You simply don't ask questions anymore...
And until simple questions start to be asked once again and simplistic answers are discarded, I am afraid I 'll only be able to look for symmetry in the DNA structure...
...or maybe in the chart of Exxon's profits!
