Sebastian Junger: Meaning from War and Technological Isolation in America – #29

Sebastian Junger: Meaning from War and Technological Isolation in America – #29


>>STEVE: Thanks for joining us, I’m Steve
Hsu.>>COREY: And I’m Corey Washington, and we’re
your hosts for Manifold. Our guest today is Sebastian Junger. Sebastian was a war correspondent for 15 years,
has covered war for over 25. His writings have appeared in the New York
times, Vanity Fair, the New Yorker and the National Review. He’s the author of five books, The Perfect
Storm, A Death in Belmont, which won the 2007 PEN/Winship Award, Fire, War and Tribe. His documentary work includes the trilogy,
Restrepo, Korengal and The Last Patrol about war and it’s effects on soldiers.>>COREY: Restrepo won the Grand Jury Prize
for domestic documentary at the 2010 Sundance Film Festival. It was nominated for Academy Award for best
documentary in 2011. His 2017 documentary Hell on Earth, The Fall
of Syria and The Rise of ISIS. Documents the early years of the Syrian conflict
and the origins of ISIS from the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. He’s currently working on a documentary on
Mexico for National Geographic television due out in 2020. Welcome to Manifold, Sebastian.>>SEBASTIAN: Thank you.>>COREY: I’d like to begin with Syria, ISIS
and the Kurds, the subjects of Hell on Earth. Last month, president Trump announced the
U.S. was pulling troops out of Northern Syria, troops that were there in part to protect
Kurdish civilians and fighters from Turkey. Many of our listeners might not know good
deal about the Kurds of Northern Syria. Can you tell us something about the situation
on the ground that is community faced?>>SEBASTIAN: I’ve never worked there. I’ve always wanted to go to Kurdistan and
I never got there. So, what I know is from what I read the paper
and talking to people, but the Kurdish people have never had their own autonomous country. Their population that’s spread over several
countries, all of the autocratic, and they have worked very hard to establish pretty
enlightened to egalitarian society, many women in leadership roles and female generals. I mean, the heart of the Arab world, women’s
rights are quite prominent in Kurdistan.>>SEBASTIAN: I think that has been quite inspiring
to American who have volunteered to fight over there as well as American forces that
are over there. I can’t claim to know what President Trump
was thinking in his decision to pull American forces out of that area, but clearly his own
military has said that the consequences in human terms, in military terms and in strategic
terms, the consequences have been very, very severe and arguably catastrophic.>>STEVE: I thought they quickly formed an
Alliance with the Syrian government and so they’re actually hasn’t been a genocide or
even large scale Turkish invasion of that area.>>SEBASTIAN: I mean, you don’t have to have
a genocide for the consequences to be catastrophic, our biggest rival in the world arguably is
Russia, they now have taken over American military basis. They own that territory now, we are no longer
there. I’m not a general, right? I’m just speaking as a news consumer, but
it seems like we’ve lost a piece of the global Chessboard to arguably a dangerous rival.>>COREY: Is your underscore in Hell on Earth
and strong ISIS, the Kurds, for the brunt of the suffering. We basically carried airstrikes and the Kurds
with the ground forces. So I think there’s a sense in which among
many that sense that we owe them something. And is this a sentiment you found, perhaps
among soldiers that you’ve talked to?>>SEBASTIAN: I mean, all countries owe their
allies loyalty. I’m not sure we owe the Kurds something as
a people, but when you form strategic alliances with other groups, their usefulness disappears
if they get the sense that you don’t feel a sense of obligation to them as well. So, I think always is the wrong word, but
certainly there is a probably a strategic loss in introducing the idea that an alliance
with the United States is something that can disappear overnight.>>COREY: I don’t know about you guys, my first
awareness, the Kurds came back in the late eighties. This was paying attention to Iraq and the
on fall campaign against them that Saddam carried out. I think like as you mentioned, like a lot
of liberals you the sense for due to their statelessness, due to them being haven’t developed
a lightened society, due to the targeting of chemical weapons, that they’re sensitive
population that one should care about and protect.>>STEVE: So Corey, I just want to question
you on that. Are you for or against the Iraq war?>>COREY: So it’s interesting->>STEVE: Was it a huge geopolitical blunder
by the United States? And if so, liberating the Kurds maybe it wasn’t
worth invading Iraq.>>COREY: Note that the Kurds actually had
some autonomy pretty early on. We basically, introduce a no fly zone to protect
the Kurds, but it’s complicated, right? I think, and Sebastian gets into this in an
article in Vanity Fair, right? There’s a question of humanitarian intervention
and in some case it seems to work, in some cases it doesn’t. In Iraq, it looks like it was a largely mistake,
but there are other cases in which I think it’s been successful.>>STEVE: But you can constantly say, if we
were not to intervene in this part of the world, right? A lot of people would suffer. So you can just constantly make cases across
all parts of the world that we should be intervening but of course then you have to be realistic
about what our resources are and what our actual larger geopolitical goals are. So, I think it’s a very false calculus just
to say people are suffering here, Americans have to go there and die now.>>COREY: Sebastian.>>SEBASTIAN: Well, yeah. I mean, I don’t think that it’s either or. I mean, there are clearly situations where
people were dying and unconscionable numbers, for example, World War II, when American entry
into that war arguably in the immediate term and the longterm, I think probably spared
humanity quite a bit of suffering at a smaller scale in Bosnia, then Bosnia was my first
war, in NATO intervention in Bosnia in 1995 brought a halt to three years of warfare,
arguably of genocide, certainly of ethnic cleansing, with a two week bombing campaign
that where no NATO lives were lost, there was a minimum of civilian casualties.>>SEBASTIAN: It was the right thing to do,
strategically and in humanitarian grounds. Rwanda, there was a chance lost there. I think it would have been very easy for Western
military to intervene in Rwanda the way the French did in Mali few years ago and bring
a stop to a war that was incredibly costly and horrified to anyone who was paying attention.>>COREY: And extraordinarily low tech, right? People kill over months with effective machetes,
right? I think with a few Marines, you could have
stopped that genocide.>>STEVE: Ironically, I think it’s a straw
man to say that there are never a good cases of U.S. intervention, I think the question
is by and large is the U.S. intervening too much in the outside world not enough. I think Trump ran on a platform of saying
that he wanted to reduce U.S. entanglements abroad. That’s a very traditional old stance among
certain aspects of our political establishment, but of course he’s taken the heat from the
military-industrial complex and War Hawks and neocons and all the people that want to
keep us involved in everything.>>SEBASTIAN: Just to jump in, the Iraq war
was not a humanitarian intervention. I mean, let’s not confuse Bosnia with President
Bush’s escapades in Iraq. They’re really different things.>>STEVE: But the case is often made as you
beat the drums for war, then you can immediately invoke a certain subpopulation of people that
are suffering, they would be better off if we got rid of Hussein et cetera, et cetera. I mean, you can hear the same thing about
Iran right now. I mean, there are certain parts of the establishment
that want to go to war with Iran. I think Trump just kicked out Bolton who would
love to go to war with a 100 countries tomorrow if we let him.>>SEBASTIAN: I think you’re conflating two
different things. I mean, the humanitarian intervention that
France did in Mali, that NATO did in Bosnia, it could have happened to Rwanda, are very,
very different from agenda of war in Iraq over a false issue of WMD. I mean, no one was saying that Iraq was a
humanitarian intervention, even President Bush wasn’t cynical enough to say that. So I mean, I think you do have to keep those
[crosstalk 00:09:00]>>STEVE: Yeah. I wasn’t trying to make an equivalence between
those things. I think I was talking more about the Kurds. So here’s a sympathetic population that maybe
we could help, but very complicated region, a lot of forces at play, Turkey, Iran, Syria,
the Russians. What price threshold is it worth helping these
people? I think that’s the more difficult question.>>COREY: Well, not that Northern Syria was
relatively quiet at that stage, that we were not invading their country, we had troops
already there. We were not taking huge numbers of casualties,
Northern Iraq, we had a no fly zone which was fairly stable. So I don’t think you can argue … Again conflate
humanitarian invention with the decision of pull out troops in Northern Syria. They’re really different issues, and liberals
argued for it, but that wasn’t Bush’s motivation.>>SEBASTIAN: Also, ISIS is a real threat to
the world, they’ve killed a lot of people. The combination of American forces with air
power and are tactical wizardry on the ground with local forces like the Kurds, were extremely
effective in combating ISIS, and that collaboration resulted in the collapse of the caliphate,
which is an entirely good thing for the world. So, again, I don’t think anyone thinks America
was there for humanitarian reasons with the Kurds. I think that was, I mean, a secondary outcome
that a lot of people applauded. But really we were there to contain ISIS and
I think that was a job that had to be done.>>STEVE: I have … just a backup a little
bit, maybe Sebastian you can answer this question because I’ve been confused for years about
ISIS. So, in the late Obama administration, the
media was full of stories about how ISIS was our number one enemy, our biggest security
threat, all the while, the Chinese economy is hollowing us out and building much more
advanced weapons, et cetera, et cetera. But attention was focused on ISIS. So as a dutiful reader, I would look on a
map and say, “Wait a minute, this is a landlocked place we control, we have total air superiority
over this region.>>STEVE: We totally control the periphery
of this region. How exactly are these guys surviving? Unless there’s some kind of deeper issue going
on here, which allows them to survive.” So, I never understood the story of ISIS and
I was totally unsurprised that once Trump took power, he would be able to completely
eliminate ISIS very quickly, which is what happened.>>SEBASTIAN: I’m not sure what you’re asking,
how were they able to survive?>>STEVE: If the Obama administration had been
serious about eliminating ISIS years ago, it seems to me they could have done it. I think that perhaps there were other reasons
they weren’t completely eliminated. For example, they might’ve been instrumental
in an effort to replace Assad in Syria.>>SEBASTIAN: Well, I mean, my understanding
is that ISIS was started by ex-military officers from Saddam Hussein’s regime that created
a really radical jihad in Iraq, in the vacuum left by the pullout of American forces conducted
by Obama. So ISIS really started to gain steam at the
very end of Obama’s presidency and was really only stopped when American forces and Kurdish
forces were able to collaborate on the ground along with American air power and defeat them. I don’t think ISIS was ever a threat to mainland
America in the sense of like invading it, I mean, of course that’s a silly idea.>>SEBASTIAN: But their actions on the grounds
in the middle East were extremely dangerous to people and horrifying to people who live
there. And of course, they haven’t had an ideology
that an inspired lone wolf attackers in Paris and the United States, in Belgium and Denmark,
I mean, in Holland rather, I’m trying to remember, it’s a few years ago, but their ideology spawned
some absolutely horrific attacks against civilians all over the world. So, the collapse of the caliphate, I think
just in terms of human welfare and human dignity was probably a good thing. I don’t think it could have been achieved
without some kind of action by the West along with the Kurds.>>COREY: I think there’s some reason to believe
that actually, Assad saw ISIS as an advantage to him, right? Many of these people were in Syrian jails
and were released because having ISIS out there, but the muddied the waters as to who
his opposition was and he could claim that position is these terrorists rather than these
more moderate opponent figures.>>STEVE: So me that few year history is very
unclear what was going on because it seemed obvious we could crush these guys if we wanted
to, which Trump accomplished relatively quickly. But it was strange that so much attention
was focused on these people. People in orange jumpsuits having their heads
sot off with KA-BAR knives. If you look on the map, they look like an
extremely vulnerable entity that we could take out immediately but we didn’t do it. And so I was very surprised by that.>>SEBASTIAN: You can’t defeat anyone with
their power, it doesn’t work. I mean [crosstalk 00:14:06]>>STEVE: Well, if they can’t get food, water
and oil and money then … they are also landlocked.>>COREY: They get money by controlling areas
and taxing people.>>STEVE: Well, but if you could cut off that
entire region if you wanted.>>COREY: Cut off the entire middle East, it’s
an economy, right?>>STEVE: No, no. The whole region that was occupied by the
caliphate.>>SEBASTIAN: No, you couldn’t . How could
you do that?>>STEVE: It was a completely landlocked, surrounded
by ostensibly hostile forces region. The cities that were controlled by ISIS.>>SEBASTIAN: You can’t cut off anyone with
their power. It doesn’t work. I mean, the Russians would have won in Afghanistan. They were possible. The Americans would have won [crosstalk 00:14:38]>>STEVE: This is not Afghanistan, this is
the desert.>>SEBASTIAN: Yeah. So it was Afghanistan. I mean, air power just does not, it’s not
magic. It doesn’t do that.>>COREY: It’s a cross state Steve, right? It’s across Iraq and Syria, States that have
economies, right? So you can get money by tax and businesses
there.>>STEVE: So for example, one of the things
that was widely discussed was whether Turkey was allowing oil to come in and out of that
region, and what exactly were the delicate geopolitical reasons why that was being allowed. So, I’m saying, I think the whole situation
is quite complicated and not very well understood.>>COREY: So I’d like to talk about Afghanistan,
because it’s a war that you spent enormous amount of time covering, if all the wars I
think we were in, it was thought to be, I think the most justified. It was in many ways, I think perhaps historical
reasons thought to be perhaps the most unwinnable. You’ve got a passage in war where you write
about captain Dan Carney. I just want to quote this to you because it
really struck me, “As he’s turning around a corner in a road hitting a wall of Taliban
fire power, I was blown away by the insurgence ability to continue fighting about everything
American thrown at them, from that point on, I knew it was number one, a different enemy
that I’d fought in Iraq, and number two, the terrain offered some kind of advantage I’d
never seen or heard about in my entire life.”>>COREY: So I think there was a sense of soldiers
that this was a really different kind of conflict and one to be extremely difficult. Now over the years, we’ve kind of a stalemate
now, and I’d just be curious about what soldiers you’ve talked to have a sense about the war
looking back, given that we haven’t won it.>>SEBASTIAN: Yeah. I mean, I don’t know that many soldiers that
… I mean, I don’t really talk to them about that stuff, but the sense that I get is, even
when I was over there … sorry, it’s New York City in the background. The sense that I got was that Iraq was the
questionable war. I mean, even among grunts in the U.S. military,
they had the sense that like, “All right, there were no WMD to interact. What exactly were we doing there?” I mean, everyone had a great time and everything,
but seriously, like what were we doing there? Afghanistan was not questioned because there
was such a direct link between Afghanistan and 9/11, unless you believe these stupid
conspiracy theories. But the soldiers I was with, they understood
that there was a moral, legal and a strategic rationale for going to Afghanistan after 9/11.>>SEBASTIAN: I don’t know how they see it
now. I mean, clearly the reason we went to Afghanistan
to me was two fold. I mean, one was to kill and capture the Al-Qaeda
leadership, which happens, and probably could not have happened had we just flown SEAL teams
out of Northern Virginia. The other was to stabilize that country, normalize
it so that it was not the kind of rogue state that a group like Al-Qaeda could find safe
haven in and plan and conduct attacks against the West. I mean, that was the two fold strategy as
far as I saw it. I mean, for me, when you say the war in Afghanistan,
I don’t necessarily picture American soldiers.>>SEBASTIAN: I mean, I was there in 1996,
when the Taliban took over, we met despicable regime. I was there in 2000 with Massoud while he
was fighting the Taliban. I mean, when you say the war in Afghanistan,
to me that includes the Soviet invasion includes 10 years of absolutely ghastly civil war and
then the relatively peaceful era that started with NATO involvement in that country. By peaceful, I mean, civilian casualty rate
plummeted but NATO forces got there. Because the civil war effectively stopped
and the Taliban reoriented their firepower on Americans, American soldiers.>>SEBASTIAN: So to me, when you say the war
in Afghanistan, it could be any one of those three things. American soldiers are focused on the last
one of course. I think Afghanistan has a fighting chance
of being a relatively stable country that brings the war to an end. I hope they do for their sake and our sake,
but of course I can’t see the future. I don’t know.>>COREY: I think many Americans, including
myself probably do see through the lens of just being U.S. soldiers at work there and
you’re right, it’s an incredibly long history and perhaps we can’t expect to change it all
that much. But you just spent enormous hard time there
with men in that situation, and they were fighting for something and off it seemed like
from your description but they’re often fighting for their own brothers and their own [inaudible
00:19:15] and without seeing a much larger purpose in life.>>COREY: That seems to forge incredible a
cohesion but to very different, I think how many Americans view that war as fighting for
removing the Taliban, creating some stability. This always struck me as a interesting gap,
maybe it’s typical of wars, but it struck me as a very interesting gap between what
we saw as the function of the war and what actually motivated men on the ground.>>SEBASTIAN: Yeah. I mean, there’s different levels to the decisions
that go into joining the military and fighting. I mean, maybe you go to college because you
have this idea of a career in your mind, but in the night before a test, you’re cramming
for the test because you want to pass the test. Right? So in combat, the thing that motivates you
to act the way soldiers do in combat, those causes are completely proximal. Right? They’re your own safety, the safety of your
brothers like that’s all you’re thinking about, all you should be thinking about, that’s all
you need to think about to fight effectively.>>SEBASTIAN: Why would a young man or a young
woman join the U.S. military in the first place? Any number of reasons. One of them might be a sense of patriotism,
but one of them might be in the days after 911, a sense that we need to strike the enemy
after they struck us. I mean, a lot of guys out there, it was all
men in the platoon that I was with. That beeping is from the streets of New York,
if that’s what you’re wondering about. So, the soldiers that I was with, it was all
men out there. It was combat infantry. It was all male. A lot of them joined because their fathers
had fought in Vietnam and the grandfathers in World War II but honestly, they saw themselves
as bad asses and they wanted to know what it was like to be in combat.>>SEBASTIAN: I mean, straight up they wanted
to experience combat and when they found out they were supposed to go to Iraq in ’07, but
when they found out they’re going to Afghanistan, they thought, “Oh God, there’s not going to
be any fighting, we’re going to have to sit around and drink tea with elders all year.” They were wrong. But that was their fear, was that they were
going to have a 15 month deployment where they did absolutely nothing at all. When they got there and there was a lot of
combat, it was disturbing and hard and everything else, there was also well and keeping with
their identity, their vision of themselves and what they felt they train for. So, like what motivates people to do that,
it’s very, very complex. A lot of it has to do with the vision, their
own particular vision, cultural vision of manhood, what it means to be a man.>>STEVE: Could you comment on what aspects
of this experience of combat is timeless and universal? So, would have been the same for people in
Vietnam or in Normandy as you observed in Afghanistan versus what’s especially unique
about the modern experience that these soldiers went through?>>SEBASTIAN: I mean, on material level, there’s
different weapons, different technologies. I mean, at the outpost I was at, there was
no communication with the outside world, but at the COP, at the company headquarters, you
could actually get on the phone to talk to your girlfriends, which is obviously recent
in the military experience. But at a more fundamental human level, I think
it’s completely universal that the bond between combatants, the vilifying of the enemy, the
dehumanizing of the enemy, the incredible grief and sorrow at losing your brothers.>>SEBASTIAN: The sense of guilt that someone
who caught a bullet in the forehead, that happened somehow, it was your fault that that
happened. That’s obviously ridiculous, but it feels
that way. Their sense of meaningfulness like it said,
to being needed by others. I mean, you can see elements of that if you
read the Iliad, I mean it’s just a universal part of combat and it was very interesting
to see those ancient themes in the lives of modern American boys, who grew up playing
video games and whatever, but there it is, it’s as ancient as can be.>>COREY: This is actually a real big theme
in your last book Tribe. What happens to these men after they leave
the military. I guess I asked a similar question. You talk about speaking with the men and often
none of them expresses how to go back, and those issues about, you’re trying to find
meaning after war. Is this against something you think is utterly
universal or is there something particular about what happened after Afghanistan to the
experience of people leaving and then searching for meaning?>>SEBASTIAN: Well, humans are social primates. We are wired to belong to groups and we function
in small groups. In fact, we cannot survive without that. I mean, you put a human in nature, they die
immediately. Humans survive because they function in groups
and in fact they thrive. So we get our emotional safety in that from
the same place that we get our physical safety from the proximity of others. One of the ironies of modern society is that
we’re wealthy enough for … Example, a lot of middle class families and up, each child
has their own bedroom. That’s insane, right? I mean, it’s in terms of human history and
the history of our species, it was very, very recently that broad swaths of the society
were wealthy enough to get every child their own room. Right?>>SEBASTIAN: So of course that’s great. They have autonomy, they can listen to whatever
music they want to without their siblings complaining, blah, blah, blah. But there’s a real downside to it, right? Which is that you lose this sense of communal
living, that sense of connection when people sleep in groups, shoulder to shoulder, they
feel safer. If you don’t believe me, try going camping
by yourself, try to fall asleep in the mountains like in a sleeping bag all alone under the
starry sky, you will not sleep very well. Not because you’re cold, not because the ground
is hard or whatever, but because you know that when you’re asleep you are incredibly
vulnerable. And if you’re in a group of 30 guys and everyone’s
got M4 lying by them, you are not vulnerable.>>SEBASTIAN: I got to say I slept better out
at Restrepo, surrounded by all those guys than I’ve ever slept camping by myself in
the woods of new England, even though I was far less safe out there. So if you just think about humans in those
terms and those tribal terms, that’s what we need, is what infants need, that’s what
adults need, then you take people and you put them in combat in situations like Restrepo
where they are very, very close together for a year. They’re depending on each other for their
lives and for their emotional safety, and then you pick them up and you bring them back
home and you drop them down in American society and suddenly everyone’s in their own bedroom
with the air conditioning on and watching TV. There are advantages to that, but the downside
is this profound alienation.>>SEBASTIAN: You don’t have to be a soldier
to experience that. You could … One quarter of Peace Corps Volunteers
struggle with significant depression after they come back from two years overseas to
American society, one quarter, which incidentally is just about the rate of psychological struggle
that you find in American soldiers that have come back and veterans that have come back
regardless of whether they were in combat or not.>>SEBASTIAN: I mean, what are the interesting
things to me is that people struggle almost as much when they come home from tours of
duty, whether they were in a combat unit or not. I mean, only about 10% of the U.S. military
is actually engaged in combat, but enormous number of people struggle with the reentry. To me that is a symptom, that’s an evidence
of this fact that we really … once we get exposed to being around people, we have a
very hard time giving it up and then we’re depressed when it happens.>>COREY: Have you extended other countries
to see how they actually accept their veterans back? Because it’s pretty well know it’s the general
sense of American society is a lot more individualistic than perhaps some African societies or middle
Eastern societies. So you’d expect that other countries have
a better time, would be much better basically easing the way for their veterans back into
society and so lower rates of depression.>>SEBASTIAN: Yeah, I mean, as in most of the
world, people sleep collectively in rows of extended families and infants sleep with their
parents, and people take their meals together. I was just in Liberia and it’s too poor for
people to have phones. You don’t see kids walking around staring
at their stupid iPhone. I mean, they’re playing to get you in or whatever. It’s a poor country, but there are terrible
things that come with poverty. But one of the good things is that you don’t
have all this awful technology that’s distracting everybody. By the way, I do not have one of those phones,
I have a flip phone in case you were going to pounce with the question.>>SEBASTIAN: So I mean, this is anecdotal,
I haven’t studied this. It wasn’t in my purview when I wrote Tribe,
but anecdotally I’ve heard that Afghan combatants and Iraqi combatants really do not know what
American soldiers are talking about when they talk about PTSD. They just say it’s just a puzzler to them. They go home to their villages, their communities
or whatever, and you go back with a certain amount of trauma. But trauma, I mean, we’re wired as a species,
we’re wired to survive and we have a trauma with psychologically incapacitating to people
for their lifetime. The human race wouldn’t exist, right? We evolved in an environment that was very
dangerous and traumatizing both for predators and from rival human groups.>>SEBASTIAN: If an incident of trauma paralyzed
people, psychologically we would start. Right? The question is not, are you traumatized by
combat, but how long does your trauma last? There’s every indication that people are traumatized
in groups if they have to heal by themselves, they have a hard time healing. So I think what you get with Afghan fighters
and Iraqi fighters and people all over the world is that, when they fight, they come
back to a community with other fighters that they were with, and then that healing process
is much, much easier than it is in the suburbs of America.>>STEVE: So, when would you say in the West
we started having PTSD, World War I, civil war, prior to that.>>SEBASTIAN: Oh, I know, a trauma reaction
has always been with us of course. I mean, you can see it in other animals as
well, it’s not just humans.>>STEVE: But in of returning to an environment
where you’re isolated and you don’t have a brotherhood that you can rely on to make sense
of what you just went through.>>SEBASTIAN: Well, I’ll put it this way. I mean, it’s not, there isn’t a bright line,
I think society has been changing continually. Western society has been changing continually
for the last few hundred years, since the industrial revolution probably. But just as an example, my wife is the youngest
of 12. Her dad was quite, quite old when she was
born. He fought World War II, the whole deal from
North Africa, Sicily, Italy, right through France on foot. He was a lieutenant and a captain in infantry
unit. Imagine what he saw, right? He came back both physically and I’m sure
psychologically wounded. I think he probably suffered far more trauma
than most American soldiers have in the last 18 years of warfare, in these current wars.>>SEBASTIAN: And he came back to his neighborhood
in the Midwest where all six of his brothers from his family, blood brothers had all served
and they all lived within a few blocks of him. Right? Most of the men in that neighborhood related
to him or not had also served. Right? American society is more and more mobile,
and I don’t think that’s conceivable anymore. I think it would be quite hard to find someone
who had that experience, did that help him reenter society and recover from his trauma
and be able to function as eventually the mayor of his town and the president of a community
bank, where he helped the community enormously for the rest of his life? I’m sure it helped him, absolutely.>>SEBASTIAN: Our society unfortunately is
not heading in that direction, it’s heading in the other direction. I think you see it in the rates of longterm
PTSD, the rates of addiction, the rates of depression, of suicide, all of them are sky
high in a country the that boasts the largest economy in the world, one of the highest standards
of living in the world, the most powerful may be, the most everything, and yet psychologically
we’re in pieces.>>COREY: If you look at rates of other kinds
of psychiatric diseases not related to war, something anxiety, they’re like an order of
magnitude higher than in other countries. I think I was looking at the rate of anxiety
disorders a little while ago. In Nigeria, it’s 0.2%, and I was just in Nigeria
over the summer, and it’s very interesting because it’s a middle income country, people
have cell phones. But what’s clear is that the degree of social
connectivity among people is just much, much greater than it is in the United States. You’re constantly surrounded by people and
any of these connections you can’t see.>>COREY: Some of them may seem to American’s
onerous, one discussion I had with people there was how much … and these are pretty
well off people, how much of your money goes support family members economically? And they’re just deep financial ties. People give money to family members, family
members constantly visiting. There’s a sense which are around people, and
so I think it creates a connectivity that may not be visible, but it’s really … American’s
may find economically and distasteful because you can’t get rich because much money goes
to other people, but yet there’s incredible benefits to it psychologically.>>STEVE: I was in Armenia over the summer
and I was shocked to learn from some medical doctors and university professors that, so
the State doesn’t have a well-functioning healthcare system and none of them have private
healthcare insurance. So they’re essentially all uninsured. When I said, “How does that make you feel?” They said, “Well, we rely on our families,
so if something bad happens to me and I need a procedure, then we’ll get the money from
my extended family.” So yeah, it’s a very different setup.>>SEBASTIAN: Yeah. What I would say is that, Armenia, I’ve never
been there, certainly, Nigeria, I have been there. Those are less complex, less modern societies. In American, you have 400 and some million
people, whatever it is in this country. It’s a modern society where that community
fabric has been worn away in many places, where people’s children get up and move to
the West coast or the East coast or whatever. I mean, one of the great things about this
society is that it’s so mobile and that a young person has just decided to make their
life anywhere in whatever way they would.>>SEBASTIAN: I mean, that’s a beautiful thing,
right? But there’s a loss there, right? There’s the loss of community fabric. So if you have a country like this with all
of its great blessings, you might need some institutional care to step in where extended
family and community might otherwise do the job and other kinds of societies.>>COREY: Years ago, a friend from Sweden once
said that Americans talk to the psychiatrist when they should be talking to their friends. It’s something I’ve seen, I think you mentioned
this in Tribe. I don’t know if it’s your current wife or
your ex wife is from Bulgaria, you mentioned, and in Western Bulgaria too, she used to talk
about how, and still true, she’s from Plovdiv, which is the second largest city that you
simply release your kids out of the house and there are many playgrounds there and people
play collectively. I think you referred, you describe, I think
it’s a late Soviet housing where kids would run most freely between different apartments. I don’t know if that’s still true there, but
I still sense of this greater collectivity there then even in the most traditional societies
communities here.>>SEBASTIAN: Oh yeah, absolutely. I mean, there was a collective effort in the
neighborhood to manage and take care of the children of the neighborhood. As those children grew older and became teenagers,
they were sent off to, to us sounds horrible, communist work camps. Right? I mean, does that not sound horrible or what? But actually the reality is that they were
great fun and the boys would live in one barracks and the girls would live the other, and there
was of course, a lot of crosspollination late at night and they’re away from their parents
and they worked during the day, and they led an ideal collective life for the summer.>>SEBASTIAN: My former wife, Daniella, she
grew up very poor in a very poor country. Even, she said that some of her fondest memories
are from that collective experience with other young people during those work camps. I should say that in Sarajevo, I mean, I was
in Sarajevo during the siege, during the war, there was a lot of collective defense of the
city. The children sheltered in the basements of
these buildings, there were neighborhood militias that defended the neighborhoods. Everyone was thrown into the breach to keep
the city from falling to the Bosnian Serbs who were shooting at everybody with tanks
and sniper rifles and everything else, it was ghastly.>>SEBASTIAN: So later, I went back to Sarajevo
after the war, just a few years ago and, this is in my book Tribe, but one woman I talked
to almost lost her leg during a bombardment. I mean, this woman as a teenage girl really
paid the price for this war having happened, and she said, Despite all that, she said,
“The war is over and it’s so much better, et cetera, et cetera. But we all miss it. We missed the war.” Even though we miss getting shot at, they
don’t miss all the horror of the death of course and starving and everything else. I mean, a fifth of that city was killed and
wounded during the war, imagine, as civilians. Right? What she said that they missed was that they
were together, and they were stuck together.>>STEVE: And they felt more alive maybe.>>SEBASTIAN: Yeah. But also alive and connected and like they
were needed and that, the people needed them and there was a shared experience. When humans can share an experience with other
humans, it feels meaningful and it feels good and life feels fulfilling even if that experience
is extremely hard. There’s graffiti in Bosnia that this woman
told me about. There’s a graffiti in Bosnia that said on
a wall that said things were better when they were bad. And that says something very, very profound
about humans and about the kind of difficult circumstances that we undoubtedly involved
in as a species, have been allowed just to survive and thrive. In some ways, ironically thrive to the point
where life feels a little bit less meaningful than it might if it were harder.>>STEVE: So Sebastian, I want to ask you,
you’re obviously very sensitized to the atomization that modern society is producing. So, for example, you mentioned you carry a
flip phone rather than a smartphone. But on the other hand, you’re a world famous
writer and filmmaker, and your products can be beamed out to millions or even billions
of people through all these advanced technologies. So how does it feel like to be both the nexus
of all this and also aware of all the shortcomings that come from these technologies?>>SEBASTIAN: Well, I mean, everything has
an upside and downside. I mean, I drive a car, right? I mean, the cars, it’s a miracle machine. I mean, and I don’t get me started on the
airplane, right? It’s just a car. I mean, you can get into a car, push your
foot down half an edge, and you’re zooming across the country, right? It’s magic, right? But there’s enormous costs to having a car
into the environment, to the way our cities are laid out and ultimately to the kind of
communities that we can or can’t afford because we’re so highly mobile. When you take the car away, the Amish in Pennsylvania
for example, when you take the car away, what you find in these communities is because people
can only get as far as they could walk in a day away from their community. Because of that, you find much lower rates
of suicide and depression.>>SEBASTIAN: Is that worth? I mean, is having a car worth higher suicide
rates? Yeah, maybe, I don’t know. But the point is there’s an upside and the
downside to everything. I don’t use a smartphone because I don’t want
to look like everyone else look that’s walking down the street looking at their stupid email. But that’s just me. I feel like I lead a more pleasurable, meaningful
life being less distracted on the street but to each of its own.>>COREY: It’s interesting. I remember reading article about the Amish
a few years ago and the elders said that they can pretty much keep every technology out
from the community, but they can’t stop the kids from having smart phones. It would begin to erode.>>STEVE: Wow.>>SEBASTIAN: I mean, they were designed to
be addictive, right? Addictive within one use. So much so that recently in the New York Times,
there was an article about how Silicone Valley parents will not let their children have screen
time or it’s severely limited. Now this is a product that they designed,
right? They designed it to be addictive and addiction
plays two very ancient human responses that were beneficial and helpful in a different
environment but for us, there’s an enormous downside, which is this lack of human connectivity.>>SEBASTIAN: I mean, people call it social
media, but when you see a table full of people not relating to … at a restaurant, not relating
to each other and staring at their laps, I’m sorry, that’s not social behavior, it’s anti-social
behavior. We know that anti-sociality is correlated
with suicide and anxiety and depression and everything else, and this exactly what you
can see in the young generation in this country, like astronomical levels of psychological
distress. Can I prove that it’s because of social media
and the iPhone? No, I can’t prove it, but it’s possible enough
that they’re connected, that we should be concerned.>>STEVE: I want to run something by you Sebastian. So I was shocked to learn from my kids, my
kids are 14 now, but when they were younger, I asked them, I used to kid them sometimes
and say, “Hey, was there a fight at school today? Did anything interesting happen?” My kids looked at me like I was crazy because
apparently there are no fights in schools now, that kids have been so … I don’t want
to say feminized or socialized, but the boys don’t even fight. They understand that if they fight, it’s huge
a deal, there’ll be … it’s like a nuclear Holocaust or something. So, my son claims he’s never actually seen
one kid punch another kid in the face, which to me is unbelievable because it seemed to
happen like pretty much every day or every week when I was a kid.>>SEBASTIAN: Yeah. I mean, I don’t know where you live, what
kind of school it is, but I think I’m going to say that there’s plenty of schools and
plenty of communities where there’s plenty of fighting, for better or worse. I think that’s a huge, that’s not necessarily
a universal in America right now.>>COREY: Sebastian, I think we’re almost at
our end of time with you. This idea of a trade-off is something that
really struck me. I actually have unusual policy with my kids,
which is I allow them to watch unlimited amount of screens, but in foreign language.>>SEBASTIAN: That’s great, I’m got to remember
that, I have a two and a half year old. That’s excellent.>>COREY: So my daughter is … I speak French
too at home. I speak okay French, but she has acquired
effectively a native quality French accent from YouTube. It’s perfect.>>SEBASTIAN: That’s amazing.>>COREY: Incredible comprehension. Her grandmother’s Bulgaria comes to visit
for six months, a year. And a French comprehension is much better
Bulgarian comprehension, and but it’s an obvious trade-off, right? Because she spends a lot of time staring in
front of the screen, but yet I’m trying to make her kind of a citizen of the world of
roll through this. It’s experiment, right? I’m waiting to see what happen but it looks
like at this stage, I’m seeing a possibility in the future for being able to travel quite
widely throughout the society and I’m just curious as to, I’d like to get your reaction
to the experiment, right? Because you’ve traveled fairly widely, most
Americans don’t. I think it’s really limits our perspective
on the world to some degree.>>SEBASTIAN: Absolutely. Listen, I mean, look, the internet provides
all of human knowledge to everybody almost instantaneously. I mean, if there’s anything … if a collective
human consciousness is possible, it’s the internet, right? So a very, very powerful thing. I’m not saying that’s bad. I’m just saying, look, I play an instrument,
right? I don’t have a teacher, I can go on YouTube
and see other people play my instrument and learn from them. Right? It’s a miracle. Right?>>SEBASTIAN: I’m just saying that along with
every miracle comes the potential for a downside, and if you don’t mitigate the downside you
are possibly endangering yourself, your society, young people, this is whole new, right? This is a whole new era, and we have to be
aware of the psychological consequences of all of these new inventions because some of
them really could be quite damaging to people. They clearly are damaging people.>>COREY: Well Sebastian, I think our time’s
up for you. Thank you very much for taking time to speak
with us.>>SEBASTIAN: My pleasure, thank you guys.>>STEVE: Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *