I don't take issue with the idea that certain aspects of some cultures should not be condoned as morally right.
However, the author has no facts to back anything he asserts. Warrior societies are successful, and always have been. Thar is a proven business practice, as it were.
... that is to say, the survivors tend to be very, very crafty. Whether or not there is social sanctions for 'thar' behavior, I think that insults to honor and blood feuds often used by the immature, adolescent male more than the older, mature male. 'High-tech' may prove more as a means for killing people with more expensive equipment.
I've had some interesting times reading the comments here over the past couple days and thinking about them. My conclusion (for now) is that the author of the article has some insights in a very broad sense while overlooking some things. He says things that can be mistaken for racism because he did not provide specific examples to the contrary. Having looked through some of his other articles on the site, I see that he also has some very strong opinions. However, at the end of the day, his opinion is more or less irrelevant to someone who is living a modern warrior's life (as archaic as that sounds) -- whether that person is a martial artist, or a hacker. I find I have trouble taking his opinions seriously when I have doubts that he has been at the sticky end of violent conflicts. You cannot intellectually stop yourself from pissing your pants and vacating your bowels when your body is screaming in mortal danger.
Culture shapes us the way, say the Ruby on Rails framework shapes a web app. Conventions may be the results of hard-won experience, but the truly mature human being walk that path of evolution and learn from their own mistakes. One's whole life is an iterative process of development. Evolutionary scaffolding. Technological superiority does not entitle us supremacy any more than our ability to deliver violence. Hack your own life and make it better.
Where do we keep getting the term "moral" from? I'm talking about the effectiveness of certain cultures to make their members happy and to adapt to change. I am not sure where we got into this discussion about morality.
This is the first time you have used the term "warrior society," so I am unsure as to what you mean. Last I checked, there were no truly pacifist societies that existed for more than just a few years (or were supported by another society prepared to use force)
My fuzzy-definition alarm is going off again. I sure hope you don't mean to use the term "warrior society" in such a broad sense that it has no particular meaning at all. As a starter, I would suggest societies that have mandatory military service, require the ownership of weapons, believe that the strong should conquer the weak, etc. I could add more, but it's your term. I think there's a big difference between what I think of as a warrior society and a society that uses violence in measured ways.
But I submit. Uncle. Whatever. I enjoy people having differences of opinion. I also feel that in small teams you have to chase down these differences and get them resolved. It's not like one person can think of the customer as being a 70-year-old lady and the other person think of them as being a teenage male. Terms mean things. I think if you keep chasing, as pg opined, you'll eventually end up in fairly close agreement. There's a balance between being probing and inquisitive and being obnoxious. I was probably a little obnoxious. Sorry about that.
However, the author has no facts to back anything he asserts. Warrior societies are successful, and always have been. Thar is a proven business practice, as it were.