h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Pity the political and religious leaders of the world..

In addition to their preoccupation with everything else, their inflated egos usually stand squarely in the way of enlightenment

Let me ask, is an Israeli life is worth more than a Palestinian life?

Or whether the freedom of an Israeli is worth more than the freedom of a Palestinian?

What kind of security or freedom does a Palestinian have when he is born landless into a festering refugee camp?

What kind of security or freedom does a Palestinian have when his land is occupied by a foreign army?

Am I the only one who is as upset by the deaths of Palestinians, or Afgahns, or East Timorese, or Rwandans as I am by the deaths of 6000 thousand Americans?

You ask us to help you. Who is 'us'? The 'civilised' world? What are we to protect you from, the 'uncivilised' world? Are all humans equal or are they not?

Of course all humans are equal.

Its just that some are more equal than others.

The idea expressed earlier in this strand that America is out protecting people of the world from dictators is a joke. America (and the rest of the free, and easy, world) works with whoever it suits their foriegn policy to work with. If that means acting with the best intentions and fighting harsh regiemes thats what they do. If that means setting up and supporting dictatorships they do that too.
Had Sept 11th not happened would Bush and the rest of america ever have learned the name of the Pakastani (unelected) leader who is now their ally. Would they have gone on this anti-terrorism not Islam quest in their propaganda?
I suspect that they would have gone on the same way. Letting people all over the world kill tens of thousands of people as long as they were foriegners far away.

Dare I suggest that you seek to find the words of Pope John Paul II who appears to have a most balanced, compassionate and helpful outlook on the tragedy which is unfolding. Only by talking, and LISTENING can anyone or any government or head of government begin to find areas of common interest and sharing. And dare I suggest that the problem which has nearly brought the Irish question to its knees appears to have been resolved due, without doubt, to both Dialogue and understanding or seeking to understand the other persons point of view. Peace be with you.

Dare I suggest that you seek to find the words of Pope John Paul II who appears to have a most balanced, compassionate and helpful outlook on the tragedy which is unfolding. Only by talking, and LISTENING can anyone or any government or head of government begin to find areas of common interest and sharing. And dare I suggest that the problem which has nearly brought the Irish question to its knees appears to have been resolved due, without doubt, to both Dialogue and understanding or seeking to understand the other persons point of view. Peace be with you.

And note the American connection there as well

Hi there,

In response to the SpikyHappyPalestinian:

The question you pose is a wrong one. To ask for a restatement of the obvious is only hollow rhetoric serving to get peoples opinions on your side. With people telling us things like:

'I'm sorry that you do not realize how much The United States has done to try and protect Israel from the Palestinians and their violence'

I don't entirely blame you but people asking the kind of question you posted usually practise the opposite, using the won sentiment to breed hate among the self-proclaimed equal others. People tend to unite under rather trivial communal traits such as beliefs, interests, faith, skin colour, insights like 'all people are created equally' (those insights being religious or not) because our genes can't survive if we stay solo. And when such a 'universal truth' (I don't think all humans are equal, I only think we should have some basic equal rights, but I can see that even this is very difficult given our many, on some points massively different cultures who ideally should have their own progressions, which is impossible in the light of this world that keeps getting smaller) is stated in conflicts, it's not there to say 'hey, we're all equal, lets stop fighting and get along because our differences are on a sub-level from our equality' but rather 'Kill our adversaries, we're not less'.

Though I'm no fan of the pope who still fails to take into account human weaknesses, sentencing his equally catholic 'sinners' (of course, it's the petty sinners who do have a little envy or lust that I'm talking about, not the catholic mass murderers usually regarded as saints or martyrs) to an afterlife of suffering (and rushing them there by proclaiming the abstinence from condoms), talking and especially listening on basis of equality seems to offer the best solution to any problem. But human nature simply does not excel in that field. We all seem to know that 'in the animal kingdom' it's survival of the fittest. We all seem to see the human capability of being more social than an animal, though that's where we come from (I know religious people tend to disagree on that one, they do however all have some sort of rulebook that states social guidelines). We however fail to notice that we as a kind need more training when it comes to compassion and understanding, letting our animal side (to be taken metaphorically by religious people) take over when it comes to conflict. This can also mean conflict of interest.

It's not a scoop bringing forth the idea that 'some people are more equal that others'. It's wordplay equally hollow as Spiky's rhetoric or the suspicion

'that they would have gone on the same way. Letting people all over the world kill tens of thousands of people as long as they were foreigners far away.'

That's no suspicion, that's a fact, and I support the notion that most regimes, be they democratic or not always look after their own interests first and not after those of suppressed foreign people. However, what you should question is why you think of any country as 'letting people kill other people'. What do you propose? All out war, all the time? I don't see Afghans with banners stating people should be nice to one another even if you like to live around a few old buildings and some dust deemed ‘sacred’, or that the Spanish government and the ETA should seek to talk about segregation in an open and friendly atmosphere. Why do you think easy countries should support anything that has to do with how other countries are run? You belittle internal opposition in doing so. And if this country has something to offer that makes life in an easy country even more easy, but this easy country does not agree on how the uneasy country is run and there's no room for a dialogue, abstinence is a choice on offer as well.

This should not be taken as an excuse to deny help. It's just that countries or nations are not fit to do so, which is why we have the 'whatever symbol you make red' and other such organisations, preferably the ones with at the basis the idea that all people have a right to nutrition, shelter, health etc. instead of religious or political beliefs.

Frederik Vorderhake

Firstly I have to point out that Free42 mistakenly attributed some of my comments to SpikyHappyPerson. Namely those toward the end about letting people kill other peoples.

In response to his coments I will clarify my statement.

It was meant to rebutt the suggestion earlier in the strand that the US is the policeman of freedom in the world, knocking down evil dictatorships wherever they are found.

I certainly do not support wholesale interference in most domestic political troubles by outside countries except in a facilitating role as we have seen the US doing here in the UK and in Ireland (both myself and Spiky are from the UK but I think we were both speaking as world citizens). The idea of cultural imperialism is certainly abbhorent to me.

There have to be exceptions to that rule though.

One of these has to be when the conflict is a direct result of our prior policy as in Africa and the Middle East.

The troubles in the midddle east are the result of broken promises and treaties between western powers and the Arab states going back to the break-up of the Ottoman empire. Western meddling has created situations like those in Gaza and so we have a moral obligation to sort them out.

The troubles in so many African countries are the result of our Imperial policies and our continued profiteering from these conflicts that kill millions.

Another exception is when there are clear violations of Human rights in the strongest possible terms. Examples of this should include the mass murders Stalin committed, the terror of Pol Pot and maybe even the Sabra and Chatila massacre.

We CANNOT ever allow countries to mass murder their own citizens simply to preserve ideas of non-interference inother cultures. To do so is to invalidate all cultures and their rules, both internal and international. No reasonable state takes part in such actions.

The final exception is the turning a blind eye to human rights abuses among our allies. The key recent example is our new memory blank over Chechenya since sept 11.

Turning to the response to SHP's comments I have trouble understanding the points Frederik is trying to make.

I did understand his initial comments about rhetorical use of the concept of equality though.

I disagree strongly with the idea that 'Equality' should be seen as a rhetorical concept used only for the demonisation of our enemies. (though I fully admit that both sides in the present conflict are happy to try and take the same moral high ground on the importance of human life in their rhetoric whilst acting completely differently be it with sucide pilots or cluster bombs)

I strongly believe that we should strive to treat people as equals. I live in a multicultural society that strives to promote all forms of faith and belief as of equal importance (with the exception of racism and bigotry). If I can claim to understand my muslim, christian, buddhist and satanic friends as equals I can try to treat the peoples of other countries with the same level of RESPECT as I do anyone else.

I will leave any other response to this to SHP but if Freek would like to clarify his statement I'd be happy to discuss the subject further.

In response to Freek's reply:
I'm not entirely clear on some of your points but let me try and address some of them.

I was deliberately vague in my posting, I just wanted to make people think a little about the logical conclusions of some of their (rhetorical) statements. I am not by any means a dedicated liberal - in fact you will find it hard to get me to commit to any ideology - all I believe is that politics is full of unavoidable and indeed necassary ambiguities and paradoxes which are either overlooked or deliberately ignored by those with a any strong ideology.

There is in politics a profound paradox between identity and difference, ie. we all have some sense of identity, but it is the differences between these identities that causes conflicts, at least on one level. Nationalism and religion are I beleive the most dangerous of these.

What bothers me is the hypocricy and logical conclusions of the rhetoric used by politicians and most other political actors. For Bush to say that September 11th was an attack on freedom, and that the Taliban deserve to be destroyed becasue they are a brutal and repressive regime, is flagrant hyprocricy while the US supports the Saudi regime. Saudi Arabia is as brutal and oppressive a place as Afghanistan. A US secretary of state, I'm not sure which, once said of a certain puppet dictator in Central America: "He may be a mean son-of-a-bitch, but at least he's our mean son-of-a-bitch." I think that highlights my point here precisely. The fact of the matter is that the US is only interested in attacking Afghanistan because the Taliban is not pro-American. The use of the rhetoric of freedom and democracy is cynical propaganda.

Although the Republican administration does not seem to have a clear plan of action at the moment, and has employed the most hypocritical of rhetoric, I actually beleive that a Democratic administration would have been far worse in these matters. "There is nothing worse than a liberal scorned" as a wise man siad to me the other day. The stronger one's ideals and do-gooding (self-decieving) self-belief, the more furious one is when those ideals are apparently broken.

For all the rubbish spoken about "evil" people out to destry freedom and democracy, I'm sure all those miserbale people in the oppressive regimes of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, and indeed in pro-US Saudi, Kuwait, Jordan, and Pakistan would willingly give their lives for a taste of the freedom and democracy we have in the west. In fact, is that not indeed the very drive behind these terrible events?

Hi

I'll clarify what I think needs clarification.

Firstly I have to point out that my former post began as a reaction to Spiky, but that was only half of it. In the other half I most certainly addressed Scott Bennett-AKA Scoop as well as Researcher 186476 and I thought I had left enough textual clues to make that clear. Next time it'll be more obvious.

You think of America as 'letting people kill tens of thousands of people as long as they were foreigners far away' and I think it the wrong view to adopt since the only thing you seem to offer is military action by America or another country. It's not up to them or any other country to 'let that happen' or 'not let that happen'. It happens. By saying:

'Had Sept 11th not happened would Bush and the rest of America ever have learned the name of the Pakistani (unelected) leader who is now their ally. Would they have gone on this anti-terrorism not Islam quest in their propaganda?
I suspect that they would have gone on the same way. Letting people all over the world kill tens of thousands of people as long as they were foreigners far away.'

you seem to support current actions taken. Military action like that never seems to lead to a solution for a country or a nation, especially when such a country or nation has different cultural standards. You'll have to have your GB global police force, a role America's current government has rather recently most generously put to rest (but are playing it when provoked, willing to be judge and executioner as well) and THEY were talking about missions for the United Nations, in which case they are not to be seen as such, but the United Nations is (to be seen as the global police force). This reeks of them determining their interests per mission, only willing to support those UN missions that support their interests as well which is only a suspicion from my part, but I think it's true nonetheless.

I agree there are times when outside intervention should be seriously considered an option, but then to be carried out by the UN, not allies, axis, America, Afghanistan, Great Britain, Muslims, Jews, and not even by terrorists. The UN supports dialogue and has at least the possibility of being neutral. If soldiers operating under UN flag would stress that point instead of being Russian working for UN or American working for UN, maybe they would get somewhere and maybe they will be trusted. I think one of the reasons why America is targeted is their self sought high profile in UN missions (they need to hear how good they are a lot) as well as in their solitary ones.

And íf you intervene, when do you propose to stop such an intervention? When you have put into power the suppressed? Do you think such governments are built to last? And the best part: they have to be democratic because 'we' put them there and that's 'our' way of doing things. How democratic can such a government be when it has been put into power by a foreign country? Do you seriously think Afghanistan under royal rule with a government made up out of what is now the Northern Alliance can last, even after 'free' elections? Why am I writing about the bombing of Afghanistan as if it was a humanitarian intervention? Because I would like it to be like that and it could have been through the UN. But it just goes to show that the UN is hollow in that respect too when member states like Afghanistan and Pakistan do not live up to UN resolutions like extraditing sought terrorists to hear him before an international court. Pakistan can be questioned in this affair as well as they befriended the Taliban regime and could have tried to persuade Afghanistan to hand him over in a much earlier state.

Now to get to your exceptions i.e. situations when outside interference is justified:

'One of these has to be when the conflict is a direct result of our prior policy as in Africa and the Middle East'

You mean Imperialism? Could you be more specific on those policies? Isn't the goal here to get countries to be independent and peaceful? I don't think you can get to that point by intervening under another countries flag since this would be taken as a new form of Imperialism. Getting those countries in line to be squeezed dry again by the in your words easy world.

'The troubles in the middle east are the result of broken promises and treaties between western powers and the Arab states going back to the break-up of the Ottoman empire. Western meddling has created situations like those in Gaza and so we have a moral obligation to sort them out.'

Well, this is interesting. What kind of intervention are you speaking of here? Do you want GB's peace keeping ground troops occupying the Temple Mount, shooting every extremist that comes along? (for people wanting to know more about this issue I suggest [URL Removed By Moderator])

'The troubles in so many African countries are the result of our Imperial policies and our continued profiteering from these conflicts that kill millions.'

I think an intervention, as stated above, in these countries is imperialism all over. As I said in my former posting, I think we should try abstinence instead of profiteering for a change, thus not economically supporting corrupt regimes that maybe have filled the gap left by imperialism.

'Another exception is when there are clear violations of Human rights in the strongest possible terms. Examples of this should include the mass murders Stalin committed, the terror of Pol Pot and maybe even the Sabra and Chatila massacre'

I do not disagree. And I do not disagree with the intentions of putting an end to those kinds of monstrosities, but this should not be carried out by another country. Why MAYBE Sabra and Chatila? Sharon should be tried by an international tribunal. To elect such a man president clearly supports my point that the human issue will sort out itself.

'We CANNOT ever allow countries to mass murder their own citizens simply to preserve ideas of non-interference in other cultures. To do so is to invalidate all cultures and their rules, both internal and international. No reasonable state takes part in such actions.'

True and ideally mass murder is questioned from within the cultures in which they take place. But intervention should not be carried out by individual countries.

The final exception is the turning a blind eye to human rights abuses among our allies. The key recent example is our new memory blank over Chechnya since sept 11.

So you want to intervene there as well?? I don't quite follow this one (as well as the Palestine one). As something that should not be forgotten I can only credit you for not doing that. The ability to forget such things only shows how lame people are, which is my whole point, illustrated by me paraphrasing Gag Halfrunt.

Frederik Vorderhake

Hi Spiky

thank you for being more moderate that I suspected, but by being deliberately vague the way you were I think you only help to strengthen the onesidedness in the rhtoric of both sides that you set out to debunk, for the reasons previously stated.

You're sure all those miserbale people in the oppressive regimes of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, and indeed in pro-US Saudi, Kuwait, Jordan, and Pakistan would willingly give their lives for a taste of the freedom and democracy we have in the west? How can you be sure? As far as I know some people would, and some are very happy with a little less freedom in case of e.g. sex, nudity and abortion to name a few. I'm sorry, but such thinking IS cultural imperialism for you think 'they' want what you or 'we' want.

OK. Firstly I totally support the idea that intervention should be taken by the UN wherever applicable. To not do so would be to invalidate the very point of its existence. At the same time though do you hear the UN telling the US etc not to bomb? No you hear them asking for a more intergrated humanitarian package, a gap to distribute aid and the stopping of cluster bombing but the UN does not seem to be against the idea of the use of force.
The reason the UN is not running this operation is precisely because they do not have the freedom to deploy forces in battle, just peacekeeping (which again seems entirely correct to me or it would simply become an unfair world government).

Secondly intervention does not have to take the form of military force. If we are so against the various dictatorships and cruel regiemes of the world why don't we break economic ties to them? (The answer of course is that this is the real world and it dosen't work like that)

If we truly believe in inalienable human rights though we have to intervene in situations, regardless of determinism. In Africa our poor stewardship has left a continent where determinism doesn't exist anymore. The boundaries between countries there are arbitary creating conflict. The poverty that causes conflict is the result of our Arms sales and debt collection. These are the things we need to sort out in Africa the people of Africa are not in the situation to sort out their own problems. We need to fix our mistakes to give these people back their determinism.

My main point in all of this though (and I sense freek's as well in some ways) is that hypocrisy is being practised as standard by these western governments. It is that more than anything else that upsets me. The reason they have to act that way though comes down to one simple thing. How much western people are willing to pay for their comforts. We want things cheap and the real human cost of the cheap oil, cheap clothing and hideously overpriced Starbucks coffee hidden from us. We accept the situation of our superiority while carping about our governments' positions to all these countries.

In response to the point Freek made about whether or not pople in the countries we are disscussing want a taste of our freedom ask the Asylum seekers knocking on our door in the UK, ask the former female proffessors and teachers of Afghanistan, ask my old friend Atta. A man who was forced to leave Iran in the early eighties and flee to England to protect his freedom. A man who was a brilliant physicist in his own country but runs a Launderette here and plays chess with his customers just so he can have his freedom rather than his job.

Yes Hypocrisy (but not just western), and I think we don't differ very much in our opinions as well. The only thing you seem to support and I do not is the current Afghan Bombing. I see no excuse for that except American revenge.

I think an entirely different approach should have been put into place by the UN to get those Afghan women who do not want to live according to the sharia out from under their burkha's.

In my view, ideally, all men who put the problem of controlling their lust into the hands of the object of their lust should have their own country.

But my point about freedom does not come across correctly, I'm afraid. I'm very glad your friend has escaped being imprisoned or worse, but I think different cultures can also have different views on freedom. Maybe for him the freedom your friend enjoys now that he is a Brit, or at least lives in Great Britain, is second best to the one he sought in Iran. Did you ever ask him that?

I certainly agree with that sentiment. Different freedoms certainly exist in different cultures.
I have never asked my friend but I am sure he would agree with that idea just as I would if the positions were reversed.
What, exactly could the UN have done in Afghanistan short of the present situation in order to sort things out.
With the relatively low amount of trade with the country I find it hard to see how any other solution could have been reached.

Also if the attacks were limited to non civilian targets (which clearly they are not being with mishits and cluster bombing) would that still be wrong to you?
The idea that the US and its allies could turn the other cheek to this is ludicrous. To do so would simply invite further attacks from other groups. I can't see other rebel states supporting and fostering these actions in this way again in the near future. More than most retaliations undertaken by the US in its history this seems to be low on revenge and high on thinking. The tradgedy is that they had set up the situation in Afghanistan in the first place and then turned a blind eye. Their actions now though seem reasonable to some extent. It's not like they didn't give the Taliban every chance to extradite Bin Laden.

I do not pretend to have definite answers as to how this should be resolved, but current circumstances dictate that in both our lines of reasoning common Afghan people are being victimised and the UN can only try to help (the refugees and civilians) the best way possible. When you support bombing, civilian casualties are to be taken for granted. When you do not they keep being suppressed by Taliban. But that's not what the bombing is about. It's about getting even with those terrorists that bombed New York. That a better future for common Afghans might be in the picture as a result of this remains to be seen and is just a side effect, as you yourself stated along these lines

‘Had Sept 11th not happened would Bush and the rest of America ever have learned the name of the Pakistani (unelected) leader who is now their ally. Would they have gone on this anti-terrorism not Islam quest in their propaganda?
I suspect that they would have gone on the same way. Letting people all over the world kill tens of thousands of people as long as they were foreigners far away.’

Ironically, if the UN should now be credited for ‘silently supporting’ the American bombing (or America for the bombing) because maybe they’ll bring a change for suppressed Afghan people, Osama bin Laden (if guilty) should be credited for his terrorist act because without it there would not be all this attention for their situation.

I think terrorism should be fought internal to countries, cooperating internationally, which is what this Al-Qua'ida or however you spell it does as well. This is also going on and has been for a while, but it doesn't make for CNN strikes back pictures. The bombing may represent on television that America is not turning the other cheek, but I'm afraid that the fear I heard a commentator speak out about a week ago that these raids are something to keep America(ns) occupied until ‘a better solution comes along’ is true.

And what do you mean we cannot financially hurt the Afghan regime? They may be low on 'normal' trade, but CIA notes that 'Afghanistan was by far the largest producer of opium poppies in 2000, and narcotics trafficking is a major source of revenue.' Which way do you suppose that traffic is going? And the revenue? I know trying to get a junky to abstain is not an easy task but what about legalisation (in a controlled manner)? That way also the population suffers first (because if the U.S. was to grow it's own drugs they would not buy theirs) but maybe it becomes economically feasible for them again to grow something more nutritious. A better world is not only to be found in more expensive coffee.

So now, may I ask, what is your solution if it turns out Osama bin Laden is not even in Afghanistan?

Frederik Vorderhake

Recent UN reports have shown that the Taliban have reduced Opium production by up to 70% (or a figure thereabouts), a fact that the allies are ignoring in their propaganda at home. It was under the mujahadeen (or however you spell it), the government we set up, that Opium really took off as a cash crop there. It is partly due to this that so many people are now starving out there.

You also seem to forget that every single one of the 6000 was a civillian. Al-Qa'ida don't seem too worried about the moral impact of their 'collataral damage'.

Also I hate to break it to you but James Bond is the stuff of fiction not fact. If we could have detected and fought Al-Qa'ida internally Sept 11th would never have happened. Also I am much happier to see the allies bombs going astray in public where they are instantly accountable rather than behind closed doors where they are not.

What I am starting to think though is that bombing is reaching the end of its usefullness. I am not privy to the reasons they continue but as far as I can see there is little else it can achieve except further civilian misery. It is time to send in ground troops.

I have two points to make here:

1) I'm not sure that either of you really understand the true nature of the UN. It is not a world government. The UN consists of three bodies, the Secretariat (Kofi Annan and co.), the General Assembly and the Security council. In international law, the Security Council is the sole gaurantor is international peace and security. That means that the General Assembly and the Secretariat have no powers other than those of recomendation with regard to international peace and security. Furthermore, the Security Council is not like a government that has to opperate according to laws which are interpreted by an independent(ish) judiciary. It is a reactive not proactive body. So whatever resolutions the SC passes become international law - and it can pass any resolutions it likes without restriction, so long as they pertain to international peace and security. The primary use of the SC is as a great power tool: it keeps the so-called great powers of Britain, France, China, Russia and the US involved in international politics, because these are the only states with the muscle to enforce anything. It also stops them acting alone against the wishes of the other permanent members. Whether the SC is constituted fairly is another question. Because the power of veto is restricted to these 5 permanent members they effectively have the power, so long as they are in agreement, to do whatever they want with regards to international peace and security. So if you check the record, you will see that within days of September 11th, the SC passed a resolution declaring the terrorist strikes as an act of aggression, and accordingly the US was granted the right of self-defence or collective self-defence (where Britain comes into all this). So in this case, the UN has operated exactly as it should, and there has been no breech of international law, as defined by the SC. Of course, one can debate where the line between self-defense and aggression is, but the bottom line is that if the UN had been bypassed, ignored, etc, or international law broken, we would have heard about it in the media.

2) Although in principle the US has the legal right to bomb, it seems to have got bogged down in this. The contemporary US military doctrine is known as "Air-Land Battle", as seen in the Gulf War. That is basically first gain air-superiority; then strategically strike the enemy's infrastructure to degrade his military and industrial capabilities; and then go in with land forces when the enemy is effectively paralysed and blinded. This doctrine was developed to be able to fight the numerically superior Soviets in the cold war. The problem with this strategy here is that Afghanistan has little to no infrastructure anyway. Its roads, rail, electricity and communications networks were practically non-existant. Any vestiges of these would have been disrupted within days of the bombing starting. So why are they still bombing? Because this strategy doesn't work in what is basically a stone-age country. The Taliban militia/military doesn't need the infrastructure that a western power does. Invading with ground forces now would be just as diffcult as it would have been before the bombing started. So clearly, the bombing is just continuing because the US doesn't know what else to do, and it has to be seen to be dong something in order to send the right message to its people and its enemies.

Thanks for the UN info Spike. Hugely informative to me.

Mr Lior, remember this:

Several Americans since 1948 have helped, even illegally, to support the IDF. We have ran guns, stood up for Israel's right to exist repeatedly in the international forums, and given you nuclear capability. I am sorry for the sweat and money my ancestors have give to support your nation is so easily swept aside to point and laugh. The arabs have roused the sleeping giant, and unfortunately for everyone, we are p**sed. Our relationship with the whole world will be changed forever. I am sorry for your selective memory friend, to taunt your one true ally.

I rather pity the children for they inherit the earth. And if the warlords who are also human beings cannot live in peace and harmony with fellow human beings with whom can they live?
(Just thinking)