Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Unknown Target on July 19, 2011, 12:47:42 am
-
I was just thinking about it. I think the last time the world was at peace was…wow, was there ever a time? I know the US has been pretty much “at war” since 1941. Do any of us even know what that’s like anymore? I know for the last ten years we have had soldiers dying every year, almost every day for awhile. I think the last time there was peace in Western Civilization was what, in the Grecian times?
EDIT: Original thread title: "Kind of a sobering thought for me; do any of you remember what peace was like? "
-
Oh please. :rolleyes:
The world is probably more peaceful now than it's ever been before, if you're talking on a global scale. Hell, since WWII, the continent of Europe has actually stopped having wars among its constituent countries for the first time... ever, if I'm remembering my Western History properly.
If you're looking for a total and complete peace over the entirety of Earth... well, don't hold your breath. I'm pretty sure that's never happened.
-
frankly i wish the us would drop its peaceful facade and go for an all out world domination policy. i think that would be pretty cool.
If you're looking for a total and complete peace over the entirety of Earth... well, don't hold your breath. I'm pretty sure that's never happened.
thats what nukes are for.
-
Having been born in the Cold War, with the Troubles in Northern Ireland occupying a large part of my childhood, and frequent PLO hijacks acting as a sort of punctuation to this, I can't really remember a period of my life when there hasn't been some kind of 'threat' hanging over our heads.
When the USSR collapsed, I think a lot of people thought that constituted 'peace', though I'm pretty sure the occupants of the ex-states would disagree, but from the perspective of the West, it seemed like the same thing because it was a bunch of countries arguing amongst themselves and the looming threat of Nuclear War with them faded greatly.
I've always thought of politics as kind of like really fast tectonics, years of pressure may seem like nothing is wrong, but it just tends to mean that when the fault slips, the Earthquake is all the bigger.
-
It might not be possible for there to be truly a lasting peace among civilizations though we may strive for it. That is the goal of the United Nations is it not? To provide a forum where nations can resolve their differences without relying on war. It is possible to find personal peace should one seek it but on a global scale it is just impossible. There is always some conflict going on somewhere whether you are aware of it or not. All we can hope to do is contain it as best as possible. Our level of technology would make another world war a calamity on a scale never seen before. Also soldiers die in peace time as well as in times of war just not in the same numbers though it is much higher than one would think. I lost a good friend in a training accident and nearly had my own head taken off in a maintenance accident. It is truly a dangerous occupation whether it be deployed over seas or at home in garrison.
-
your tone makes it sound like you think there was a time in your life when there was 'peace'. granted the mid 90s were slightly more peaceful than present for the US, but that's only because we were ignoring all the problems that we are having to deal with now.
-
@OP: No, and you don't either.
-
war is what we do.
-
I remember there was this time when I was prospecting on a ridge and then I fell off and hit my head really hard and I'm pretty sure while I was laying there trembling and gasping for breath I was at peace but then this guy came and he lifted my head up and said something to me, he said it to me gently and then he called me a cocksocker and slammed my head into a rock and it hurt
/deadwood reference out of nowhere just because
-
BrotherBryon, I imagine if more of the people running things found personal peace, we wouldn't have as many issues today. There are always peaceful solutions, yet it seems as if most of the time people don't have the patience to find them.
Flipside; yea I'd say the only time of "peace" was post - Cold war. Like Bobbau said though, it was probably because we didn't deal with a lot of the problems we're facing now.
I'd like to point out, though, that that does not mean that we are incapable of lasting peace; though apathy would be it's greatest enemy.
-
I have a better question: do you know what war is like?
-
Good question; no, not personally. The United States has internally been at peace for 150+ years. So you could use that as proof that peace can happen on large scales for long periods of time, if those involved have a basic understanding amongst themselves.
-
BrotherBryon, I imagine if more of the people running things found personal peace, we wouldn't have as many issues today. There are always peaceful solutions, yet it seems as if most of the time people don't have the patience to find them.
I am quite sure that the middle east, africa, the balkan, and all the other ****ty little not-first-world regions of this Earth where armed conflict is something very real will be glad to hear that all they lack for true happiness is a little personal peace.
I'm sorry, UT, but you cannot simplify the problem down to that level. Your bright-eyed idealism is getting in the way of your ability to accurately analyze the reasons for conflicts, and your ability to generate viable solutions.
Flipside; yea I'd say the only time of "peace" was post - Cold war. Like Bobbau said though, it was probably because we didn't deal with a lot of the problems we're facing now.
I'd like to point out, though, that that does not mean that we are incapable of lasting peace; though apathy would be it's greatest enemy.
Wrong. Post-cold war was only Peace in the very narrow sense of us not being a few phone calls and button presses away from annihilation by nuclear weaponry. It should also be noted that among the fallout of the cold war ending was the first armed conflict on continental european soil in almost 4 decades. Face it, no person alive has ever known a period of world peace lasting more than a week. Just because you do not hear about it on the news doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Good question; no, not really. The United States has internally been at peace for 150+ years. So you could use that as proof that peace can happen on large scales for long periods of time, if those involved have a basic understanding amongst themselves.
You cannot hold a single country, no matter how large and populous, up as an example for peace on a large scale.
-
So then what can I use as an example?
I'm not talking from bright-eyed idealism; if you want a list of all the reasons for conflict I could probably give you a huge chunk of it. Why isn't personal peace the answer? Think about it; what does that include? Enough food to eat, a place that's safe to sleep, functioning utilities. It's not "Zomg we can all become happy by just wishing for it" - it's real facts. What is personal peace? What is personal happiness? What do we define it as? Who said I was simplifying the problem? Why do you assume I'm wrong, because what I preach is peace? Would you like to tell MLK, Ghandi, and countless others that they did not understand the situation they were involved in, because they dared utter a word of hope?
-
And in honest truth, has the United States really known peace for those 150 years? We invaded Mexico briefly just before the First World War. The World Wars did not intrude upon the soil of the continental US, but they had massive social and economic ramifications, and "not intruded upon the soil" is an inherently finicky definition when there was a six-month-long massacre just off the Eastern Seaboard in early 1942 among other assaults on the US that came right up to the beach and sometimes over it, but didn't involve boots on the ground.
Today, now, war is not far from where I sit to write this. No more the twenty-five miles from here and I would be in Mexico, and there are studies that suggest one is more likely to be killed in drug-related violence in Mexico then you are to be killed in an actual war in Afghanistan. It doesn't stop at the international border, it merely slows down.
Peace is an illusion purchased at the price of your willingness to shut your eyes.
-
War is what you receive when you refuse to open them.
EDIT: Let me expand upon that. For instance, let's use Mexico. You say "this war is what's happening. Accept it. You are wrong for believing in peace because I know that war is close to me.".
Rather than simply accepting that war, as many people are prone to doing, let's examine the causes for it; obviously the US's drug policies are a major contributing factor to the power of the drug cartels. The US and other first world countries also rely on cheap Mexican labor to produce goods at low prices - therefore it is in the best interests of many US companies to keep Mexico impoverished. The Mexican government itself has declared martial law in many places; though many of the citizens, I've heard, reject the use of national guard and army troops, despite the violence. People still flee across the border to the US, still because of work but also now because of safety.
This fighting, I would call it a war against the Mexican state, has been growing in intensity for several years, and looks only to be getting worse.
You would have be stay silent and "accept the reality" of these wars? It seems as if you shut your eyes and say "these wars are what happen. They cannot be stopped. This is reality. This is the way things are. Anyone who believes differently is a fool that must be silenced and ridiculed".
Instead, why do you not think of alternatives? I can think of many; such as a public referendum where US war policy is decided by the people instead of by it's political class; what would happen if the US legalized all it's drugs, ended the "War on Drugs", brought it's troops back home, and offered protection for Mexican citizens under the guidelines of the US Constitution? How well do you think the Cartels would do then?
It is easier for you to accept atrocities when they are made into the norm; you are conditioned and trained to accept these things as a fact of life, rather than question them and see if there is another way.
-
Until fishheadz come, it's human on human all day long baby.
-
As globalization spreads and solidifies, with the European Union, African Union, Asian Union and North American Union, wars are less and less about one country against another, but governments against it's peoples. For that to be solidified, globalism needs to eliminate any competitors, hence Iran, Syria, Libya, and others in the visors.
The only way to achieve peace is to go embrace the rather new ideas of a sovereign republic (Not republican or left/right/whatever) that was first introduced in 1776. It may need an update but it's the closest thing. No need to wage war when you're self sufficient and make friends with other countries. As such, globalism when tied down with the rules of a collective of sovereign republics and countries could actually propel us to the stars in record pace, instead of the slow erosion and shut down of development throughout the first world.
At least, that's how I look at it.
-
if the governments leegalized drugs that would make me a very happy person (at least until i od and died).
-
War is what you receive when you refuse to open them.
War can only be made by those with open eyes, so that they may see the enemy and strike them. It is no accident that every war of the modern age has begun at a time when the population supported it. This provides some of the enduring paradoxes of history (that Japan, already heartily sick of its war in China, could react so enthusiastically to the decision to go to war with the United States in 1941), but it remains true nonetheless.
Rather than simply accepting that war, as many people are prone to doing, let's examine the causes for it; obviously the US's drug policies are a major contributing factor to the power of the drug cartels.
Stop right there. This comment alone demonstrates that you do not have sufficient grounding in the origins and the history of Mexico's current conflict to commentate authoritatively on it. The current conflict in Mexico has many of the players in the War on Drugs, but it is not born of it.
It began a good ten years ago, not under the aegis of the US War on Drugs, which Mexico vocally will have no part of, but with a promise: we will clean up the corruption of the government. A worthy goal, yes? It was even, possibly, an achievable one. The United States was eager to help, but Mexico remembers its wars with the US sharply and will take little help or support from those who are still remembered as Imperialist Yankees.
It has progressed in scale and violence today to the point where government control of some areas in Mexico is largely theoretical. We are up to the level of open rebellion. You cannot manage that on the power of the almighty dollar alone.
The argument that if we legalized everything things would change is bankrupt. It would simply lend legitimacy to and reduce costs of the existing illegal system of distribution, and Mexico would still be having open rebellion. California's experiment with marijuana legalization has more or less proved the point that we don't have a system in place that can actually handle the legalization of drugs in a meaningful method; we treat them like pharmaceuticals but the illegal market remains, and we don't end up actually treating them like pharmaceuticals anyways.
If the War on Drugs ended today, Mexico's war to drag itself out of the Third World (and make no mistake, that is exactly what is going on) would still be going ten years from now and more, and it would only worsen. The roots of Mexico's conflicts lie in economics. Without the cartels it's possible the war would have been delayed. It's also much more likely that it would have been lost like Iran's has been.
You would have be stay silent and "accept the reality" of these wars? It seems as if you shut your eyes and say "these wars are what happen. They cannot be stopped. This is reality. This is the way things are. Anyone who believes differently is a fool that must be silenced and ridiculed".
You give yourself a great deal of credit for being able to read my mind in this. It is credit you do not deserve. Indeed the more credit you give yourself for claiming to understand my mindset, the more I am driven to hold you in utter contempt.
So let me speak plainly, sir. War is indeed reality; the reality that we live in an imperfect world, surrounded by imperfect people imperfectly interpreting imperfect systems of beliefs. Your naivety on this subject does you no favors. This does not mean they cannot be stopped. It also does not mean they should be stopped.
War is a cruel instrument. It destroys lives, families, governments, order, and even faith. But there are things that need destroying and times when lesser instruments are ineffective in the face of another's will to impose their desires via violence. As long as some will reach for a weapon to settle disputes, even those who would be accorded righteous will have need of war.
-
As far as I know, human history has never seen peace, let alone the last century or two. People have been killing people over territory and resources ever since they existed. Every civilization in history was founded upon war and domination. Heck, we can look to chimpanzees and see tribes going around killing other tribes for more territory. It's more natural for us to kill each other than not, despite how ****ty that is.
I still think we're a lot better at not killing each other than we were before. For one, we're not enslaving nations and raping the women anymore, just because we feel like it.
-
You would have be stay silent and "accept the reality" of these wars? It seems as if you shut your eyes and say "these wars are what happen. They cannot be stopped. This is reality. This is the way things are. Anyone who believes differently is a fool that must be silenced and ridiculed".
You give yourself a great deal of credit for being able to read my mind in this. It is credit you do not deserve. Indeed the more credit you give yourself for claiming to understand my mindset, the more I am driven to hold you in utter contempt.
So let me speak plainly, sir. War is indeed reality; the reality that we live in an imperfect world, surrounded by imperfect people imperfectly interpreting imperfect systems of beliefs. Your naivety on this subject does you no favors. This does not mean they cannot be stopped. It also does not mean they should be stopped.
War is a cruel instrument. It destroys lives, families, governments, order, and even faith. But there are things that need destroying and times when lesser instruments are ineffective in the face of another's will to impose their desires via violence. As long as some will reach for a weapon to settle disputes, even those who would be accorded righteous will have need of war.
...and how is that not the same thing as what he said put more eloquently?
-
In order to even think about peace, we'd have to utterly forget the concept of 'Nation' or, more specifically, 'Them'. As long as there are 'Them' then it doesn't matter what happens, as soon as they become 'Us', we care.
-
...and how is that not the same thing as what he said put more eloquently?
If you cannot grasp the difference between blind acceptance and reasoned understanding, you may have a serious problem.
If you also cannot grasp the difference between "lol you can't stop it" and "there are times when you shouldn't stop it", you may have an even more serious problem.
-
Oh please. :rolleyes:
The world is probably more peaceful now than it's ever been before, if you're talking on a global scale. Hell, since WWII, the continent of Europe has actually stopped having wars among its constituent countries for the first time... ever, if I'm remembering my Western History properly.
If you're looking for a total and complete peace over the entirety of Earth... well, don't hold your breath. I'm pretty sure that's never happened.
Interesting enough, since the end of WWII, I think there has only been one year where the UK was not involved in some conflict.
-
The scale of conflict is much lower though.
-
Wars of blatant expansionism are far rarer these days, possibly the Falklands and Kuwait being the most notable, but not only, exceptions. There are frequent border scuffles of various degrees between, for example, North and South Korea and the post-USSR states, but the concept of launching a blatant 'rolling' period of expansion, such as the UK's Empire building phase, or the World Wars is pretty much over because the latest generation of weapons make them a no-win scenario.
It's true that now we count casualties in hundreds or thousands, rather than tens or hundreds of thousands, and civilians, in particular, are probably safer than they have ever been, though this is of little comfort to those who are on the recieving end. We bemoan the death of about 300 British troops in Iraq, but in perspective, that's an incredibly good record, we probably lost several times that in the first few minutes of somewhere like the Somme or fighting the rearguard on the Polish borders at the start of WW2.
-
War is just a name given for conflicts between nations. To "solve" wars, you need to solve the human tendency to conflict.
Its hard to see that ever happening, short of genetic engineering on global scale.
-
...and how is that not the same thing as what he said put more eloquently?
If you cannot grasp the difference between blind acceptance and reasoned understanding, you may have a serious problem.
If you also cannot grasp the difference between "lol you can't stop it" and "there are times when you shouldn't stop it", you may have an even more serious problem.
Sure I can, but in this case the difference are irrelevant, as everyone was talking about what it is you're accepting or understanding, not whether you're doing so blindly or not.
You were asked whether one should just accept that wars happen and that we can't do anything about it and that sometimes war is a good idea anyway. You respond to that by disagreeing but yet re-iterating that wars happen and that we can't do anything about it and that sometimes war is a good idea anyway. Then I ask what's the difference, and you start making comparisons between blind acceptance and reasoned understanding. Doesn't make much sense. Why not just say that yes, one ought to accept that wars happen and that we can't do anything about it and that sometimes war is a good idea anyway?
-
Sure I can, but in this case the difference are irrelevant, as everyone was talking about what it is you're accepting or understanding, not whether you're doing so blindly or not.
Really? Where is everyone talking about this? Cite. We were discussing, specifically, my attitude towards war. You can't simply invent a topic and say that's what it's about.
You were asked whether one should just accept that wars happen and that we can't do anything about it and that sometimes war is a good idea anyway.
Good idea? Never said by Unknown.
I wasn't asked. I was told what I thought, which is that wars just happen and that we can't do anything about it, which is also not what I thought no matter how much you say it was.
You respond to that by disagreeing but yet re-iterating that wars happen and that we can't do anything about it and that sometimes war is a good idea anyway.
Wars happen. We can do something about it. That does not mean we necessarily should every time.
Or did you willfully ignore the fact I italicized two sentences for you?
This does not mean they cannot be stopped. It also does not mean they should be stopped.
Read it carefully, your argument was always invalid.
Then I ask what's the difference, and you start making comparisons between blind acceptance and reasoned understanding. Doesn't make much sense. Why not just say that yes, one ought to accept that wars happen and that we can't do anything about it and that sometimes war is a good idea anyway?
Because the last one is something you've entirely made up as something Unknown said, because that's not what I said, because you're simply making **** up about what the conversation was about, because that is a fool's game to blindly accept that destruction is always the only way.
-
Sure I can, but in this case the difference are irrelevant, as everyone was talking about what it is you're accepting or understanding, not whether you're doing so blindly or not.
Really? Where is everyone talking about this? Cite. We were discussing, specifically, my attitude towards war. You can't simply invent a topic and say that's what it's about.
Yes, you/we were discussing your attitude towards war. What your attitude is based on and whether it's blind or reasoned is what I was calling irrelevant. The relevant part which I think UT was talking about (maybe he'd like to tell us) was the attitude of accepting war as a fact of life and dismissing unacceptance of war as naive, which you sort of denied but still essentially kept saying yourself. That's really all I wanted to point out.
If UT comes along and clarifies that really he was commenting on what your attitude is based on (blindness or reason) and not the attitude itself (whether war is accepted as a fact of life, and so on), then sure, in that case I was wrong all along. We'll see.
You were asked whether one should just accept that wars happen and that we can't do anything about it and that sometimes war is a good idea anyway.
Good idea? Never said by Unknown.
True.
I wasn't asked. I was told what I thought, which is that wars just happen and that we can't do anything about it, which is also not what I thought no matter how much you say it was.
So are you saying that the following is more telling you what you think than asking you what you think?
You would have be stay silent and "accept the reality" of these wars? It seems as if you shut your eyes and say "these wars are what happen. They cannot be stopped. This is reality. This is the way things are. Anyone who believes differently is a fool that must be silenced and ridiculed".
Taken as a whole, that's obviously a question. Can you not grasp the difference of "it seems as if you X" and "you X"?
You respond to that by disagreeing but yet re-iterating that wars happen and that we can't do anything about it and that sometimes war is a good idea anyway.
Wars happen. We can do something about it. That does not mean we necessarily should every time.
Or did you willfully ignore the fact I italicized two sentences for you?
This does not mean they cannot be stopped. It also does not mean they should be stopped.
Read it carefully, your argument was always invalid.
Then I ask what's the difference, and you start making comparisons between blind acceptance and reasoned understanding. Doesn't make much sense. Why not just say that yes, one ought to accept that wars happen and that we can't do anything about it and that sometimes war is a good idea anyway?
Because the last one is something you've entirely made up as something Unknown said, because that's not what I said, because you're simply making **** up about what the conversation was about, because that is a fool's game to blindly accept that destruction is always the only way.
Fine, I'll concede that point. That was inaccurately portraying what you and UT said.
-
http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html
Steven Pinker charts the decline of violence from Biblical times to the present, and argues that, though it may seem illogical and even obscene, given Iraq and Darfur, we are living in the most peaceful time in our species' existence.
Some interesting part, but there are others:
Here is a graph that he put together showing the percentage of male deaths due to warfare in a number of foraging or hunting and gathering societies. The red bars correspond to the likelihood that a man will die at the hands of another man, as opposed to passing away of natural causes, in a variety of foraging societies in the New Guinea Highlands and the Amazon Rainforest. And they range from a rate of almost a 60 percent chance that a man will die at the hands of another man to, in the case of the Gebusi, only a 15 percent chance. The tiny little blue bar in the lower left hand corner plots the corresponding statistic from United States and Europe in the 20th century, and includes all the deaths of both World Wars. If the death rate in tribal warfare had prevailed during the 20th century, there would have been two billion deaths rather than 100 million.
-
How about we back up a second here guys? Obviously several people (myself included) made assumptions that seem to be causing a lot of strife. NGTM-1R, I apologize for "telling" you what you were thinking; I was talking to you but I was also speaking to you as an example of a larger population (which seems to have been a mistake on my part). It just seems to me that there is a large part of the world, especially America, that just kind of "accepts" war (and near-constant war, like what we're in) as a fact of life, as something that just has to happen. I made assumptions about you for the sake of argument that appear now to be wrong, and I offended you; I am sorry - that was not my intention.
Re: The Mexican Conflict. If it sounded like I was saying legalizing drugs = end of war in Mexico, I also apologize; because that's not what I meant. I don't think that all of a sudden the cartels will suddenly be defeated by something as small and simple as drug legalization. What I was implying, though, would be that it would go a long way to weakening them, and shifting people's attention to this very real crises going on in that country.
I would support a war against the drug cartels; I would support sanctuary for Mexican refugees. I realize that at times, war can be a useful instrument in stopping those who would wish to wage war; but it is my belief that war should only be used to do just that. The idea of pre-emptive war, or wars that are launched for unclear reasons (Libya), and so on, as being something that is "ok" and even "good" in today's world is so wrong it boggles my mind that people allow it to happen - it is of them I think of when I say that some people have become acclimated to war as something that just "happens". Though I would suspect that even then, it is not the majority; the silent majority that is so often talked about but unable to be defined, is against this rampant use of this tool.
The world has indeed been getting more peaceful, though in what way? In some cases, it seems like it's getting more peaceful only through a silent war waged by governments against their people, where there are no casualties except for freedom of thought and expression.
I have to run, I'm late for work (lunch break atm), but I'd like to focus on this here, as posted by Flipside earlier;
In order to even think about peace, we'd have to utterly forget the concept of 'Nation' or, more specifically, 'Them'. As long as there are 'Them' then it doesn't matter what happens, as soon as they become 'Us', we care.
I think that the world is going in that direction, for sure, and I agree with you. I think that many people have already made this leap on their own. The vestiges of national governments seem more and more like faded memories, propped up because some people refuse to stop believing. The world seems to be run more by powerful organizations whose force comes from their control of currencies. I wonder if there is a necessity for a global counter to that; an organization of the people for the people, so to speak. What do you folks think?
-
I realize that at times, war can be a useful instrument in stopping those who would wish to wage war; but it is my belief that war should only be used to do just that. The idea of pre-emptive war, or wars that are launched for unclear reasons (Libya), and so on, as being something that is "ok" and even "good" in today's world is so wrong it boggles my mind that people allow it to happen (...)
Could you clarify this bit? What do you mean by it being a useful instrument? Isn't that a pre-emptive action/war?
-
I realize that at times, war can be a useful instrument in stopping those who would wish to wage war; but it is my belief that war should only be used to do just that. The idea of pre-emptive war, or wars that are launched for unclear reasons (Libya), and so on, as being something that is "ok" and even "good" in today's world is so wrong it boggles my mind that people allow it to happen (...)
Could you clarify this bit? What do you mean by it being a useful instrument? Isn't that a pre-emptive action/war?
Clarification: A useful instrument for stopping those who attack another and refuse to stop, despite repeated requests for peace. I.e. only defensively; I believe I said that somewhere else in my post.
-
I realize that at times, war can be a useful instrument in stopping those who would wish to wage war; but it is my belief that war should only be used to do just that. The idea of pre-emptive war, or wars that are launched for unclear reasons (Libya), and so on, as being something that is "ok" and even "good" in today's world is so wrong it boggles my mind that people allow it to happen (...)
Could you clarify this bit? What do you mean by it being a useful instrument? Isn't that a pre-emptive action/war?
Clarification: A useful instrument for stopping those who attack another and refuse to stop, despite repeated requests for peace. I.e. only defensively; I believe I said that somewhere else in my post.
If that's your operating the criteria another nation who accepts realpolitik is going to outmaneuver and trounce you post haste.
-
So we all agree that we are living in the most blissful of times men has ever lived in his limited existence.
Doesn't mean its paradise. But still.
-
Well on that note, what can we do to improve it? I mean that pretty literally too; what, as a community, could this forum (or any other) do to improve the current situation?
I was thinking about this thread today, and thought about what I was hoping to do to change things. I was talking with a friend of mine about an idea I had for an internet community that could act as a platform for improving the world;
We want to start it based upon the idea that for a true democracy to work, we need to have compromise. If there is no compromise, then nothing gets done; simple as.
The website, group, movement, etc would be based around this as a core idea;
"We don't want your vote or your money; we want your ideas"
The first question we were thinking of asking when someone comes is;
"What do you think a better world would be like?"
Here is an excerpt of a conversation I had with Chela where we discussed a lot of this and reached our starting point;
UnknownTarget: I guess the way I see this whole thing taking off is like
UnknownTarget: like it's not about getting large numbers on the website
UnknownTarget: it's about getting a wide range of people from a wide range of areas on the website
UnknownTarget: and from there they talk and discuss things
UnknownTarget: and then when they go out into the physical world, they talk with people around them, share the ideas and ideals that were discussed on the site
UnknownTarget: invite people and talk about the site, but it's less about getting people to join and more about getting people to talk to each other
****: I can see what you mean, I just don't know how you'd really keep up with that, there'd be no real rapid progression unless people stayed true to the idea and went out and spoke about it
****: and the people they spoke to immediately took to the concept, instead of just walking off
UnknownTarget: to the first point, well I can't really force people to stay to it; i mean, the point of this idea that this is something they want. the only way it would work is if they stayed true to the idea; the idea is them essentially
UnknownTarget: as to the second point, well I imagine that most of the people they'd talk to would be their friends, and most of them would be willing to listen to this sort of stuff
UnknownTarget: I do think that it would require an openness, honesty, and maybe a bit of courage that people aren't used to seeing in the machinations of government today
So I guess I would ask; why would this have to be a special, dedicated website? Why would you have to build a whole separate community around this? Isn't the point of a democracy that the running of government is woven into the fabric of an individual's life?
In addition, I showed the same email to a friend, and he seemed to be rather receptive to the idea; his thought was that the biggest problem would be keeping it balanced and avoiding the whole thing turning into an echo chamber. What better way to avoid that than to have the community built around something else, and have the world-changing stuff as a side thing?
I guess in a theoretically perfect world it would be possible to take some of the major communities on the net, and focus them onto problems in the world with the aim of coming up with a well thought out, well discussed solution. Then, not only would you have a decision that took into account a wide range of people's thoughts, but at the same time you'd then have a large amount of people that would, theoretically, be willing to support it.
It'd be like taking all this discussion that we're having here in this thread, and then actually having it acted upon in the physical world. People would question "well why did you do this?" and you could show them when someone brought up a similar point.
-
Seems fun. I think that the future will be filled with these non-governmental and grass-roots self-organizations, which will also gradually substitute the governments in their competences. The first one of this kind that did inspire this thought of me was several years ago and goes by the name of "Daily Kos". Sure, it's a completely heavy political monster, but the grass-root type organization of it was nothing short of amazing to watch, specially in the midst of the presidential elections.
-
Well I imagine you could have a "Hard Light" party, a "Reddit" party, etc. What would be more prudent, IMO, would be to form an "Internet" party. You could really disrupt the standard pecking order if something like that came along and was well organized.
-
... "Internet" ...
... well organized.
Excuse me, but
(http://pokerterms.com/images/devinporter.jpg)
-
So we all agree that we are living in the most blissful of times men has ever lived in his limited existence.
No. We don't.
-
So we all agree that we are living in the most blissful of times men has ever lived in his limited existence.
No. We don't.
I'd like you to cite a point which invalidates his claim, if you would.
-
So we all agree that we are living in the most blissful of times men has ever lived in his limited existence.
No. We don't.
I'd like you to cite a point which invalidates his claim, if you would.
Conan, What is Best in Life?
-
So we all agree that we are living in the most blissful of times men has ever lived in his limited existence.
No. We don't.
I'd like you to cite a point which invalidates his claim, if you would.
Alright. I don't agree.
There.
-
That doesn't invalidate his claim, BloodEagle.
Please discuss accountably.
-
That doesn't invalidate his claim, BloodEagle.
His claim was that we all agree, not the other part of the sentence.
-
Then I have a question: at what time were the vast majority of people better off?
-
I'd like to know too, personally.
-
[SNAKE] (http://i56.tinypic.com/s1iyxk.jpg)
What was that you were saying... "peace is not the natural state of men"? You said you learned it in school.
[PAZ] (http://i53.tinypic.com/28hlspd.jpg)
That's right. They're the words of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant. In 1795 he wrote a book titled "Perpetual Peace." Kant argued that it's precisely because peace is unnatural that we have to make it ourselves.
[SNAKE]
How?
[PAZ]
That's what his book is about. Is the concept starting to sound interesting now?
[SNAKE]
Not really... I belong in a more natural world.
[PAZ]
Is that so... ...My grandparents died in the civil war. If only we'd been at peace, they wouldn't have lost their lives. You actually wish for war?
[SNAKE]
It's not like I want to hurt innocent civilians. But if someone attacks you, what are you supposed to do? A country needs the strength to defend itself. Otherwise it faces invasion, oppression, political subjugation.
[PAZ]
If they'd simply stop using force to tangle with each other, countries wouldn't need force to defend themselves.
[SNAKE]
And how would you guarantee that?
[PAZ]
I...
[SNAKE]
...Sorry. But you have to understand how the world works in order to protect the ones you love. That's not to say ideals aren't important, too. They are...
-
That doesn't invalidate his claim, BloodEagle.
His claim was that we all agree, not the other part of the sentence.
Ah, ok.
I think the biggest mistake I made in starting this thread was the way I framed it; I didn't really think it all the way through - the way I worded things implied that things were better at "some point". If it would help the discussion along, would it be better to apply my words to pre September 11, 2001? Let's say 1999, for instance. That was a pretty good year. Freespace 2 came out, for instance. :)
But I guess what I could also say is that how can we improve upon our track record? If we accept that the human race's history has been colored by violence for as long as any of us can remember, what can we do to change that going into this new millennium?
For instance, I want to examine this sentence here;
If they'd simply stop using force to tangle with each other, countries wouldn't need force to defend themselves.
What if we had a country that was totally pacifist? Especially one as large as the United States? What if that country in particular refused to create more war?
There's talk these days by very intelligent people that the idea of a global war is obsolete; not only do we no longer have the simple material resources to wage even WW2, but what would someone gain by invading the US? Most all of the "valuable" resources (mostly the high technology manufacturing capabilities) would be destroyed in the process. After the invasion, you would be left with essentially 50 different US-occupied Iraqs; a lot of pissed off, untrained, unskilled people who would most likely end up dragging down your war effort.
I think the idea of global peace is a truly attainable one. Yes there will most likely be fighting between now and then - for instance, dictators in many countries, leftovers from the Cold War that refuse to give up their hold on power. But beyond that I think that peace within our lifetimes is an attainable goal.
I don't have the answers and I know I have a tendency to create controversial threads with controversial thread titles, but I'd really like this to be a discussion amongst people who recognize that we are all indeed people. I doubt anyone in this thread would wish war upon another person in it, despite our disparate views and opinions, so how can we apply that to the world at large? I truly believe it's possible, and I truly believe that it might just be as simple as saying something like "We don't want to fight anymore".
That book that was referred to by "Paz" (never played the game) was written almost 250 years ago. Can we not improve ourselves in that long a time?
I'm going to change the thread title to something less confrontational/misdirecting, if anyone would like me to change it back just let me know, ok? :) I hope that it's not a problem with you guys.
EDIT: One other thing that I'd like to add is this; we simply don't have the resources or necessity for war any longer. In another time, it may have made sense to go to war for valuable resources, but now? What would you do; use oil to fight for oil? It doesn't make sense. If we view each other as human beings, instead of "Americans" or "Iranis" or "Russians" or "Germans", I think we'll realize that we really are all in this together, and we stand a lot better chance of having more of us come out together if we try cooperating. The old idea of pure competition and survival of the fittest just really doesn't seem to work anymore - at least not if you want to continue on more than 150 years. Yes, there will be misunderstandings between people, but as long as we operate on some same basic understandings (freedom, equality, no murder/rape/stealing/etc - the idea that the other person who you might be angry at doesn't actually want to see you dead because you like something different than them), and we change our mindset to be that of a global community, we will be able to get past them.
-
Then I have a question: at what time were the vast majority of people better off?
I'd like to know too, personally.
The claim wasn't that society is better off (or more peaceful) than it ever has been. The claim (unless my sarcasm detector is malfunctioning) was that we are "living in the most blissful of times," as compared with the past.
I completely disagree with that point of view (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bliss).
I could reference so many different things that support this (greater complexity == greater stress, the current trend of the psychological reworking of how the mind works regarding memory and computational aids, societal stigmata/growing pains, etc.), but my reasoning is more personal than any of that, and I'm not willing to discuss that with anyone. I merely felt the need to call "bull****," if you will.
-
Let's say 1999, for instance. That was a pretty good year.
For America maybe. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia)
try again.
-
So for America it was a pretty good year, and even then it probably wasn't. Yeesh, I'm not really trying to say "this year was the best! we should go back to this year!". I even said it jokingly. Do you really want to debate one relatively insignificant sentence? I notice you left off the "Freespace 2 came out, for instance". Did the levity in my post ruin your argument?
I'm not going to "try again" because that would be silly. You could say something was wrong with every year, and you would be right. I'm trying to talk about a way to make things better - is all you're concerned with is calling me out on petty issues and minor infractions? Do you have a larger point you're trying to make, or are you just trying to point out that I'm "wrong"?
-
Isolationism and appeasement worked wonders in the 30s. I'm quite certain if we melted our guns and played John Lennon songs everybody would be willing to live and let live.
-
Isolationism and appeasement worked wonders in the 30s. I'm quite certain if we melted our guns and played John Lennon songs everybody would be willing to live and let live.
Could you be more specific as to where I said to do that? After you do so, I would like to ask; who would we be appeasing, anyway?
-
What if we had a country that was totally pacifist? Especially one as large as the United States? What if that country in particular refused to create more war?
ta da
-
What if we had a country that was totally pacifist? Especially one as large as the United States? What if that country in particular refused to create more war?
ta da
Pacifism does not mean isolationist - you can be proactively so. The US (and many other countries) does this as well, with many of it's aid efforts.
As for appeasement, would you advocate that the Allies should have immediately and proactively gone to war with Germany? Remember, they didn't have the advantage of hindsight that we do now, and also remember that many countries were still reeling from WW1 and a worldwide depression. Not to mention how commonplace it was at the time to have war on the European continent.
What would your alternative be? Should we proactively go to war with other countries? Should we strike whenever we feel that a country may pose a threat to us at a future time?
Furthermore, it's interesting that you picked that one sentence to latch onto as well, and say that I promote isolationism.
Here I would imagine I'm making an argument for more global interaction;
If we view each other as human beings, instead of "Americans" or "Iranis" or "Russians" or "Germans", I think we'll realize that we really are all in this together, and we stand a lot better chance of having more of us come out together if we try cooperating.
And at another point in the thread I expressed interest in Flipside's idea of dissolving the old notion of countries.
As a final question, once you are done responding to my other points, I'd like to ask you again; what is your alternative to my suggestion of trying for peace and mutual cooperation between different peoples, since you seem to be so opposed to my idea of international pacifism? :)
-
Appeasement works just fine, there's just hardly ever enough of it. Hitler, for example, didn't appease.
-
I wasn't being sarcastic. I also said it wasn't paradise.
Now, there's this psychological truth that whenever age we are in, we will always say that "back in the days was just great, now it's all downhill and the kids are just brats who will destroy everything we built", so we must account for that. People say its stressful to live nowadays due to the internet and the computers and such. Is it stressful, or are we just spoiled? Is it more stressful than being forced to go to the military and join a war, like my father was, for instance? How are we exactly comparing the psychological gaps between generations?
And given the amazing availability of goods today, the availability of games and fun we have now, our troubles are about being overwhelmed by the choices, by the stuff we know we won't do in our lifes. Man, that's so stressful. I mean, I can just picture my grandfather who spent his years digging the crops and what nots, thinking "man, I'm so glad I haven't the time to play stupid games and have stupid holidays with too much to choose about anything and everything, that would just be stressful". Right.
Or perhaps I'm just happy that half of the world is leaving poverty as we speak, in the most astonishing events of the whole history.
And look, I'm not exactly suffering from a limited perspective given my localized point of view. I happen to live in Portugal, one of the few countries in the world actually in recession (and in stagnation for the past decade).
-
hippies piss me off. blow it all up! thats the answer.
-
hippies piss me off.
Now there's an argument.
-
It's a different kind of stress, I guess. Before the stress was whether or not you could get enough to eat, or the labor was hard/tiring. Now I think more people are stressed because they worry about whether their job is going to be obsolete in five years (older folks), or whether or not society will still be functioning by the time they start thinking about staring a family (younger folks). It's just the general stresses of life.
I'm glad that people are leaving poverty, but that introduces other issues that aren't being discussed as widely and as seriously as they should be; such as - to what standard of living are they hoping to attain? What standard of living are current "first world" nations expecting to stay at?
I hear a lot of arguments that say people in countries like the US or Europe would be unwilling to give up what they have and lead a less...saturated life. I don't really agree with that. I know that many people of the younger generations didn't really grow up knowing the same excesses of their parents; I don't think any of them really expect that. I know many young people don't expect to be in a unionized job when they finish schooling, as a major difference between the generations.
There should be more of a dialogue about what people in the West are willing to give up to avoid the wars and destruction that I think would come from them abjectly holding onto many of the things they honestly don't need anymore. In talking about the US; do we really need these massive houses (for those who have not been foreclosed upon)? Two cars per family? Five supermarkets within ten minutes walking distance from each other, all stocked with enough food each to feed an entire village in Africa for three weeks?
There seems to be this notion, at least in Washington and other capitals, that there would be rioting in the streets or terrible consequences if people in the West have to start cutting back. I think in reality it's more like people would complain, but get used to it, and indeed, maybe even enjoy a life less consumed by mindless consumption of junk and spending of currency. It's not like video games will stop being made, or no new episodes of your favorite TV shows will be created. We will still have many of the comforts of modern life; just maybe not as on-demand as we would like. People would have to plan more and maybe stock up food during the growing seasons. It's not that big of a deal; we've done it for thousands of years. The idea that you can get fresh apples in January is a relatively new one. Local cuisines and life will come back, as people adapt to the changing situation.
To bring this around to the topic of peace; without compromise, on both sides, it won't really happen. The US and other first world countries still have the power to enforce their will upon others, but the longer they keep it up, the more drastic the fall will be. The longer we put off making changes, the worse it will be for us when we eventually have to make them. I hope that we do not go to war, indeed, I don't even think another major world war will happen, to be honest; the world just does not have the resources nor I think the will for it anymore. What I am hoping to avoid is further bloodshed on both sides, that comes from the many small conflicts that leaders of nations so inevitably involve their lands in to protect what they think is "right" for them.
So I guess the big question is, what do we do with this new world that we have inherited? I would also like to bring back the idea of bringing these discussions into the real world; rather than keeping these very real, very well-thought-out posts by all of us involved as just some sort of placebo or echo chamber, why are we not acting on these things? Spreading these discussions to our friends, family, and anyone who will listen?
I chuckle with amusement at those meme images "the internet is here", but really...I chuckle only at the content, not so much the message. Like I said; individual communities given physical shape, or perhaps taking the internet as a whole and coordinating between different websites. Many of the old ways of doing things aren't working at best, or are causing more problems at worst. I have always thought that if the world needs something different, then it would have to change the way it changes things.
-
You seemed convinced the future is poorer than the present.
Despite all the data seeming to point otherwise.
I'd question your premises.
-
What data are you referring to? All the data I've seen points to less arable lend, less fuel, less room, more people.
I don't see any logical argument for the "perpetual growth" so often touted at the beginning of the last century.
-
Because by every measurable standard, things are improving. More people have access to food, medical care, housing. More people can watch television, use a phone, have a computer, have internet access. By both basic needs and luxuries, the numbers are going up and there is no plausible, unequivocal reason to say they will be arrested.
It's okay. Just relax and do your bit as a cog in the machine of civilization. Things will get better.
-
So I guess the big question is, what do we do with this new world that we have inherited? I would also like to bring back the idea of bringing these discussions into the real world; rather than keeping these very real, very well-thought-out posts by all of us involved as just some sort of placebo or echo chamber, why are we not acting on these things? Spreading these discussions to our friends, family, and anyone who will listen?
Experience tells me that very few will. And they're usually smart enough anyway that they don't need to hear it from others.
I wouldn't go to war, and that's about as much as I can really do.
-
Because by every measurable standard, things are improving. More people have access to food, medical care, housing. More people can watch television, use a phone, have a computer, have internet access. By both basic needs and luxuries, the numbers are going up and there is no plausible, unequivocal reason to say they will be arrested.
It's okay. Just relax and do your bit as a cog in the machine of civilization. Things will get better.
Some things are improving; and others are getting worse. There's talk that humans are reaching their carrying capacity on this planet. You mentioned food; I'm sure you've noticed the increasing price of it, both in developed and undeveloped countries. Why is that?
And I am relaxed, though I thank you for your concern and good will. :)
-
There's talk
There's too much talk. I'll give you that one.
(EDIT: To clarify, I'm not referring to your talk or this thread, etc. I'm referring to the continuous paranoia that we are always suffering about the horrendogeddons that we are almost getting into... and this is something that is even older than Malthus...)
-
There's talk
There's too much talk. I'll give you that one.
(EDIT: To clarify, I'm not referring to your talk or this thread, etc. I'm referring to the continuous paranoia that we are always suffering about the horrendogeddons that we are almost getting into... and this is something that is even older than Malthus...)
Those are things we can both agree on. :)
-
Some things are improving; and others are getting worse.
Show me. I want some measurable index that things are not improving from a respectable source. I'll bet and lay odds you can't find one.
There's talk that humans are reaching their carrying capacity on this planet.
Sure there's talk. There's been talk about that since the Roman Empire, and probably earlier. That's all it is; talk. Empirical evidence says that it's not true. We can do more with less than ever before, and we're only improving in that aspect.
You mentioned food; I'm sure you've noticed the increasing price of it, both in developed and undeveloped countries. Why is that?
Why did a Happy Meal cost $1.50 when it first came out? Welcome to basic economics. People are generally more prosperous, therefore you can pay more, therefore you will be charged more.
-
Off the top of my head, what about overfishing?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/02/AR2006110200913.html
From the article;
An international group of ecologists and economists warned yesterday that the world will run out of seafood by 2048 if steep declines in marine species continue at current rates, based on a four-year study of catch data and the effects of fisheries collapses.
if you want more than this, please ask. You'll have to wait until I can talk to some of my friends who keep better track of the numbers than me, though I'm sure they'd be happy to provide some more examples for you. What do you think of what I've posted so far, though? :)
As for food prices...so you're saying the food riots in Egypt prior to it's recent rebellion are because they're more prosperous? Thus, they can afford more, and therefore food just jumped too high for no reason other than people charging more because they can? Please correct me if I have misinterpreted your logic. :)
The doing more with less, what are you referring to? If you're referring to farming more with less people and less land, well then yes, I think the last I heard it was one person today is feeding 100 people. The thing is though, that is mostly due to automation; which requires fuel. Which is getting harder to find and thus is getting more scarce. Which is driving up the price. Which then requires that farmers increase their prices to be able to cover their expenses. Which is causing food prices to rise.
EDIT: More on topic, does anyone have any more thoughts about internet websites taking these sorts of discussions from the etheral into the physcal? Why are these sorts of things not things that are said say, during election season?
-
You know what rises food prices? Ethanol. There's plenty of farmland that could be devoted to actual food crops if ethanol subsides were eliminated and it wasn't required to be put in gasoline anymore.
-
Totally agree. Unfortunately that fact isn't really getting the exposure it needs, and it seems like the people in charge aren't getting the right information or are refusing to listen to the information they're getting; there's a lot of people who are saying that we should devote more farmland to ethanol production as an alternative to gasoline...something that is definitely not the best decision. It seems like people are trying to fit a round peg into a square hole, at least to me; we're trying to figure out what we can do to replace the car, when really nothing works quite the same or quite as well. It would be more prudent to try and find a way off this car (in it's current iteration)-dependent system, IMO, though people have disagreed with me in the past about this, offering many good and fair points.
But yes, turning arable land into car fuel is not the best approach.
-
... John Lennon songs ... live and let live.
You used to say "live and let live." You know you did. You know you did. You know you did. But if this ever-changing world in which we live in makes you give in and cry, say "Live and let Die." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07b53M07jck)
-
I thought it was Paul McCartney, not John Lennon, that did Live and Let Die.
-
It was, but both Paul McCartney and John Lennon were in this band together that you may have heard of. :p
-
The Beatles? Never heard of those guys. :p
-
Give peace a chance!
-
Give peace a chance!
i hope that's all you're saying.
-
Two, one two three four
-
i say i want a revolution
-
yeah, well, I say it's evolution
-
hippies piss me off.
Now there's an argument.
honestly i was marking my place, this discussion goes in circles and i dont like getting lost.
oh, and give war a chance.
-
You know what rises food prices? Ethanol. There's plenty of farmland that could be devoted to actual food crops if ethanol subsides were eliminated and it wasn't required to be put in gasoline anymore.
False.
Not nearly enough. Maybe to feed the western world, perhaps, but there are what, 7 BILLION of us on this planet now, what about everyone else? There were starving people in the third world long before ethanol crops grew in number? We're already overfarming our land horribly anyways. What happens when oil runs out? And it will happen, one day, allthough hopefully not soon. We're artificially renewing our farmland with fertilizers derived from you guessed it: petrochemicals. When those dissapear, then what? The Western World must consume less if humanity is to ultimately survive on this planet.
Mix in the fact that billions are still receiving inadequate food and this whole 'blame it on ethanol' argument is just false.
On the topic of 'peace' in general, my unfortunate perspective is that humanity needs a boogeyman. It seems that people truly unite when they have a common enemy. That enemy has always been some other group of people. I think that we are fast going to realize that our enemy is scarcity of resources, not other people, and perhaps that will drive us together.
What's really going to count is the decisions made by those in power when it all comes to a head. There simply needs to be a fundamental restructuring in how the global economy functions. All this work right now? It's all just patch up to lessen the blow when it comes. If and when the United States defaults on its debt (and it will happen, there is simply the question of when) the global economy will go into a deathspiral. Responsible restructuring could lead to this ultimate peace because frankly, war has always just been an instrument of taking things from those you perceive as having something that should rightfully be yours, or defending against those people.
Eliminate the divide between the haves and the have-nots, or at least make it as small as possible, and I think general human nature would be to live in peace in that situation. Those willing to war for their own goals simply wouldn't be able to martial support if everyone was generally equal. Until then though, there will be those that will take from us by force. And we must be prepared to destroy them when they attack us.
Humanity has been swinging the economic pendulum back and forth all over the world for hundreds of years. One day we will find the balance that works best, and I think ultimately we will then know peace.
Or aliens could arrive, like I said. Nothing unites humanity like a common enemy.
Edit: I'm by no means a communist, but I think right wing economics could be tempered a little bit more left. The basis of the economic system that runs the world right now is to pit one person against another which ultimately breeds conflict into us. Once again, I think war and peace are determined largely by economics. Fix them, fix war.
-
EDIT: More on topic, does anyone have any more thoughts about internet websites taking these sorts of discussions from the etheral into the physcal? Why are these sorts of things not things that are said say, during election season?
They don't have easy answers. The only answer to most of the world's problems is 'buckle up, we've put off our problems for to long'
These things don't get brought up because the electorate doesn't want to hear it unfortunately.
The tragic flaw of democracy is that the most important issues are often the ones that are political poison to discuss :(