[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Raynt

Now the first is more clear- cut, so I will start with that. Suppose someone breaks into your house and you are left with no means of escape and they charge at you with a knife. Is it not acceptable to defend yourself in whatever means is necessary, even if it may cause significant bodily harm or death to the attacker if you see no alternative?

I would recommend you learn Aikido. A central tenet of Aikido is that you cannot use it unless you're attacked first, and further, the ultimate purpose of the defensive technique is to neutralize, not injure, the aggressor. Certainly, the way it's done, you could definitely snap several bones in their body in half, but you aren't forced to. The goal is to "help" the attacker by making it so he can't attack you anymore; continuing the attack would be a bad thing, after all: he might get into the position where kililng him becomes your only option.

Originally Written by Steve Pavlina
Their goal would be to raise the consciousness of the leaders involved, and those leaders in turn could help to raise the consciousness of their own people. The leaders would need to stop preaching condemnation and violence and instead teach forgiveness and unconditional love.

I disagree with Steve's solution, because I think it puts too much dependence on leadership. The team of peacemakers ought to be working on the populace itself, and the population will naturally shift the thinking of the leaders. All leaders are ultimately democratically chosen: no single person can ever hold that much power without the support of others.

Similarly for the hypothetical genocide situation. The key isn't the leader himself, but his support. Most such despicable leaders have to rise to power, and they do it with a measure of popularity that grows and grows. Eventually, they stop garnering popular support (because they really are despicable) and conslidate their support in a military structure. And that is probably the toughest nut to crack, because the military is a mob. My answer to a mob is thus:

Originally Written by Michael Chui . See for context.
Crowds communicate as one, unified voice. Thus, when you look at a crowd, you see one "person", because they don't differentiate themselves. You are forced to look closer, to notice perturbances, in order to distinguish them. Mobs are introspective crowds: they are crowds that see themselves as one, unified voice. They are one. To break a mob, you must summon their individuality. It takes an effort. With a crowd, however, you must merely break your own blindness to their individualities. The easiest way to do this is by stereotype. Many of us do this automatically. The result is well-known in America: it's called racism, sexism, ageism, elitism, and a host of other -isms. The hardest way is by creating relationships.

It's even harder in a military because they're not actually mobs. (Yes, I know I just said they were.) Mobs are not trained to see themselves as one; militaries are. And to break that introspection, you actively have to create relationships with each individual. And considering the limits of Dunbar's Number, this means you need a pretty big team of decidedly capable peacemakers trained in this theory.