[Aardwolf]

Hm bleh. Seems like we're having the same discussion across two or three different threads. This one shall be specifically about war / the lack thereof, since that's what I ended up wanting to talk about in the other threads!




I think we could all¹ agree that it would be nice if people stopped being violent toward one another. However, we also mostly agree that something like that happening is rather far-fetched, and I do not disagree. However, a lot of people seem resigned to the fact that people will always be violent, and on a nation-versus-nation scale².

Warfare has a long track-record. But suppose people actually took "children's morality" seriously... kindness, honesty, trust, nonviolence. Obviously, everyone is not going to simultaneously drop their weapons and have a group hug. That kind of change is impractical³, but if a sufficiently large fraction of the population says "No, I refuse to kill one of my fellow human beings", they can do something.




Rhetorical questions, but feel free to answer anyway:

• When is a cause worth dieing for?
• When is a cause worth killing for?
• When is a cause worth sending people to their likely deaths, in order to kill, with some uncertainty whether they will even succeed?

I think I'm done now.




¹With the possible exception of Nuke 
²I would suggest the abolition of the nation-state, but then nobody would take me seriously 
³@MP Ryan and NGTM-1R interpreting what I said that way,

[NGTM-1R]

As long as one human is willing to use force to obtain his goals, everyone will have need of force to protect themselves from that one human. There is no "sufficiently large portion of the population"; this is an all-or-nothing proposition, especially so as long as government or any form of organization that allows one person to issue orders or direction to a group of people exists.

[MP-Ryan]

But suppose people actually took "children's morality" seriously... kindness, honesty, trust, nonviolence.

I'd like you to go to a kindergarten class of 20 or more students and simply observe them in the absence of adult supervision.  Then come report if your observations match "kindness, honesty, trust, and nonviolence."

Alternatively, take my word for it:  they won't.  In the absence of enforced rules by an adult, kids will be competitive, cheat, rely on dominance and social grouping, and engage in ostracism, aggression, and violence (such that children are capable of).

In many, many ways, a kindergarten class is a microcosmic allegory of global politics.  Now, if you could devise or create an entity to take on the role of the adult, then perhaps you might alleviate some of the problems.  That is really how the UN was conceived, but as a body for global enforcement it's been neutered from birth.

[redsniper]

Now, if you could devise or create an entity to take on the role of the adult, then perhaps you might alleviate some of the problems...

Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer!
If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him!

* redsniper bow and exeunt.

[Scotty]

Violence is a necessary facet of life.  So long as anyone believes that, everyone must believe that or simply roll over and under those who do.

The world sucks.  Get used to it.

[Aardwolf]

I'd like you to go to a kindergarten class of 20 or more students and simply observe them in the absence of adult supervision.  Then come report if your observations match "kindness, honesty, trust, and nonviolence."

Lol, not what I meant. "Children's morality" was more in reference to this:

...without sounding like small children and depending on small children's motives.

As long as one human is willing to use force to obtain his goals, everyone will have need of force to protect themselves from that one human.

Tell me something I don't know and agree with.

There is no "sufficiently large portion of the population"; this is an all-or-nothing proposition, especially so as long as government or any form of organization that allows one person to issue orders or direction to a group of people exists.

Disagree, excluding defensive wars (see above).

In a democratic government, if the majority of the population says don't go to war, the country doesn't go to war. But even in non-democracies, people will only fight a war when they choose to do so---though it may be a coerced choice. Every person who refuses to fight is reducing the strength of the army by one.




Also, nobody going to comment on "when is a cause worth..." ?

[Unknown Target]

Violence is a necessary facet of life.  So long as anyone believes that, everyone must believe that or simply roll over and under those who do.

The world sucks.  Get used to it.

So does this mean that you choose to be one of those who roll over those who disagree?

[redsniper]

No, he's one of the guys that believes it. He's saying those that don't believe it will get steamrolled by those who do.

[NGTM-1R]

In a democratic government, if the majority of the population says don't go to war, the country doesn't go to war. But even in non-democracies, people will only fight a war when they choose to do so---though it may be a coerced choice. Every person who refuses to fight is reducing the strength of the army by one.

This excludes the majority of revolutions in the course of human history from having ever happened. The American revolution, the English Civil War, the recent revolution in Libya, the French Revolution, any of innumerable intercine conflicts of Rome...

You get the idea. It similarly excludes the use of military force in situations like the current NATO support for the Libyan revolution, or United States involvement in Europe during the Second World War. There are times where nonviolent methods of preserving the lives and rights of others simply will not be enough; crimes that cannot be stopped save with force. Simply because it is not always practical to do so does not mean it should not be done wherever it is practical.

[Scotty]

Violence is a necessary facet of life.  So long as anyone believes that, everyone must believe that or simply roll over and under those who do.

The world sucks.  Get used to it.

So does this mean that you choose to be one of those who roll over those who disagree?

I would if it became necessary to do so for the safety of myself or my loved ones, without hesitation.

[Nuke]

world peace can only work if we vaporise the entire surface of the earth with nuclear weapons first. the survivors, if there are any, will probably figure out not to do warish things anymore and can build a utopian suckfest in the glowing ashes (more likely they will fight over resources).

[Flipside]

world peace can only work if we vaporise the entire surface of the earth with nuclear weapons first. the survivors, if there are any, will probably figure out not to do warish things anymore and can build a utopian suckfest in the glowing ashes (more likely they will fight over resources).

I'd give it maybe 100 years, long enough for the new tribes lands to start intersecting, before they start fighting again. If there's one thing humanity has displayed, it is a difficulty with learning from anything more than a couple of generations away. Basically, if no-one is alive to remember it, it doesn't count.

[bobbtmann]

I think you can be well defended and still be peaceful. Just because a country has a military doesn't mean it has to be used to invade other countries. Training can keep an army in fighting shape, and as a bonus it isn't nearly as dangerous as real combat.

[Aardwolf]

In a democratic government, if the majority of the population says don't go to war, the country doesn't go to war. But even in non-democracies, people will only fight a war when they choose to do so---though it may be a coerced choice. Every person who refuses to fight is reducing the strength of the army by one.

This excludes the majority of revolutions in the course of human history from having ever happened. The American revolution, the English Civil War, the recent revolution in Libya, the French Revolution, any of innumerable intercine conflicts of Rome...

You get the idea. It similarly excludes the use of military force in situations like the current NATO support for the Libyan revolution, or United States involvement in Europe during the Second World War. There are times where nonviolent methods of preserving the lives and rights of others simply will not be enough; crimes that cannot be stopped save with force. Simply because it is not always practical to do so does not mean it should not be done wherever it is practical.

Hm.

Mmk.

But I still contend that people are too quick to resort to violence. And that this tendency isn't an inescapable aspect of "human nature".

[Scotty]

"too quick."  Opinion.  Unprovable.  Contending something that is unprovable (as the entirety of your post) is the equivalent of a discussionary party foul.

The simple fact of the matter is that violence works, and until it stops working, there's no reason for anyone to not use it when necessary.

[Aardwolf]

The question was never whether violence is necessary/sufficient to achieve a particular goal, the question was what goals are worth using violence to achieve.

[Scotty]

Such a question is subjective; there is no exact answer.

[Grizzly]

In a democratic government, if the majority of the population says don't go to war, the country doesn't go to war. But even in non-democracies, people will only fight a war when they choose to do so---though it may be a coerced choice. Every person who refuses to fight is reducing the strength of the army by one.

This excludes the majority of revolutions in the course of human history from having ever happened. The American revolution, the English Civil War, the recent revolution in Libya, the French Revolution, any of innumerable intercine conflicts of Rome...

You get the idea. It similarly excludes the use of military force in situations like the current NATO support for the Libyan revolution, or United States involvement in Europe during the Second World War. There are times where nonviolent methods of preserving the lives and rights of others simply will not be enough; crimes that cannot be stopped save with force. Simply because it is not always practical to do so does not mean it should not be done wherever it is practical.

Hm.

Mmk.

But I still contend that people are too quick to resort to violence. And that this tendency isn't an inescapable aspect of "human nature".

I think you can also be too slow to respond to violence. Look at Nazi Germany (by which I obviously do not mean Nazi Germany's policies themselves, but hte policies against them).

[Bobboau]

In a democratic government, if the majority of the population says don't go to war, the country doesn't go to war. But even in non-democracies, people will only fight a war when they choose to do so---though it may be a coerced choice.

>>>implying the population of a democratic country wouldn't ever want to go to war

every person who does chose to fight increases the power by one, and probably shoots the deserters to prevent further descent.

[castor]

But I still contend that people are too quick to resort to violence. And that this tendency isn't an inescapable aspect of "human nature".

Most of humanity's problems are escapable, but there usually is a price to pay. For example, I don't believe this species is able to simultaneously be completely free and completely nonviolent. How much of the one are you willing to give up in favor of the other?