[Kolgena]

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.

[zookeeper]

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?

[Flipside]

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.

[NGTM-1R]

...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.

[Ravenholme]

Oh please. 

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.

[Mars]

The scale of conflict is much lower though.

[Flipside]

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.

[castor]

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.

[zookeeper]

...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?

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[zookeeper]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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.

[Unknown Target]

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?

[Ghostavo]

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?

[Unknown Target]

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.

[StarSlayer]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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.

[Unknown Target]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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.

[Unknown Target]

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.