Can War be Stopped?

Let's see...
Was your post longer than this?


[400 or so lines of Buddhist scripture deleted-SG]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No it was not nearly that long. The interface is racist. Whenever I make posts that are a few paragraphs long, it locks up and errors. I have to split it. For some reason. Maybe it is because of the crappy IE, but it was working a few days ago. Waitaminit. I think I know. It all started happening yesterday which was just after Windows ran an Automatic update in the middle of the night whilst I was asleep. I woke up, and these problems began.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I run IE 7 and just got a an update in the middle of the night a few days ago too.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It was the night before last. I copied your entire huge religious doctrine, and tried to post it. It loaded for a few minutes before giving me a page cannot be displayed. I'll try to run another update.

 

OK I think I fixed it.
Let's see if this works.


[400 or so lines of Buddhist scripture deleted-SG]

 

w0000000000000000t!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Glad to see you spreading the Buddhadharma, Luke Licker.

 

Bootyrama LMAO that sounds like a porn flick. Hands against the wall hoe. Spread your bootyrama!

 

No, war cannot be stopped because man loves war, and is a self destructive killer ape. Man loves to destroy shit, just for the hell of it, because he can.

What is more fun than destroying everything?

You want proof? Look at how people act during riots, these are the natural instincts of man.

 

TimeTraveler,

Did you read any of what I had to say in the past 15 pages?
I am not insulting, I am just curious if you disagree with my position, or are unaware of it.

 

War is a violent form of population control, unless the war has an end and a goal.

A lot of wars are just about killing as many of the "enemy" as possible with no further goal than that.

In these cases, the war is not a war for resources, or for space, or to settle a dispute, it's simply an emotional expression. It's a war against life, human life of course.

Wars will never end, but if we want to, we can have wars which are a lot less violent. Must we be violent? No, at least not this violent.

Wars can be fought with no violence at all at this point.

 

Examples?

 

TimeTraveler,

Did you read any of what I had to say in the past 15 pages?
I am not insulting, I am just curious if you disagree with my position, or are unaware of it.

 

The problem with communism in a Republic, is that the ruling class has to be absolutely perfect. If the ruling class is corrupt under communism it's a million times worse than if the ruling class is corrupt under capitalism, because at least under capitalism theres competition.

Communism works for SOME humans, but it seems the vast majority of humans are too selfish for it, and too stupid, a combination of the two flaws.

I've read some of your ideas, not all 15 pages, thats a lot. Sum up your ideas, but in general from what I have read, I don't see how this would be the end of war.

The cause of xenophobia at this point is religion.
We have the internet now, so community is not a location, as theres an international community now, and we are a part of that community on sciforums.

Religion however is what seperates good people from other good people. Dogma is what causes people to fear one anothers differences.

I don't really believe that the majority of people even understand what a community is, but to the few who do, these people view other communities which they know less about as competition. The reason they view it like this is because in economic reality, other communities, and other individuals who are not tribally connected in some way, are competition.

Survival of the fittested, which is social darwinism, usually wins over e pluribus unum. A community exists because the laws make it exist, not because people actually care about their neighbors. The only way a real community can exist without men with guns and laws, is when it's an extremely religious and small community. Like monks, or a village, or a tribal community.

Not fear exactly. It's the lack of rationality. In specific, it's our addictions which make us addicted to war. We are addicted to certain feelings and emotions.

Sometimes fear is rational, but addiction is never rational. War comes about not from just fear, but an extreme addiction to both fear and hatred.

The problem is addiction, just like if a person chain smokes, they know it's an addiction thats going to cause them cancer, but they just can't stop because they have been doing it for so long. Just like with smoking, we are addicted to war.

Until we recognize that we have a problem, an addiction to war, we cannot ever make progress on treating ourselves for that addiction.

 

If the war is just for resources, the war should end the moment the resources are secured. In fact, there would be little to no real need for an open war, with TV cameras and troops, it would be a completely stealth economic and covert war, where resources would be strategically acquired.

So why do we need bombs? At this point, bombs, and ridiculous jet planes, and nukes, and biological weapons, this is just overkill. The only reason these sorts of weapons make any sense is to kill massive amounts of people. This is why they are called weapons of mass destruction.

Why do we make and use these sorts of weapons if it's not just about killing? Seriously, why have so many nukes, and so many extinction type weapons if they aren't supposed to be used on each other?

 

OK six days of arguments summed up for you...
I'm not going to spend too much time rehashing it all, so you will have to forgive me if the ideas don't flow terribly well...

Human's many vulnerabilities are painfully obvious, and they remain acutely aware of their own mortality.
It is this deep seated (or is that seeded? I can never remember) insecurity and sense of vulnerability that causes fear in them, and this fear controlls nearly every aspect of their lives.

The two advantages humans have over other animlas are intellect and community.
This instinctual dependence upon, and fierce loyalty of, community is what causes xenophobia.

The only hope for human kind to eliminate war (which I do think is possible) is to grasp their intellect and overcome fear - therefore defensiveness.

As I was saying to Max, people support wars because they are sold on them.
Marketing... Propaganda...
People supported the cold war, because they were afraid the big, bad commies were going to destroy our comfortable way fo life.
They support the so-called "War on Terror" because they are scared.

Give them something to be scared of, then promise you will protect them from it.
It's the best way to stay in power.

Politicians prey on fears and insecurities.
Religions prey on fears and insecurities.
Advertizers prey on fears and insecurities.

People would not follow corrupt leaders and support wars if they were not scared.
Make people scared of something, promise them you will protect them, and they will be your scared, obedient, little sheep.

People are scared of terrorists, scared if diease, scared of poverty, scared of germs, scared of nature, scared of losing their lifestyle, scared of losing their jobs, scared of not being cool, scared of everything.
People are fucking scared of life.
As a result, they offer their lives to those who promise they will keep them safe and sound.

You want to horde your belongings and protect them from those who are out to steal them.
You work harder and harder to amass a fortune, because you don’t want your family to go hungry.
Back to the idea of the only two defenses humans have is intellect and community – you seek power to protect yourself and loved ones from “others”.
“Us” vs. “Them” comes from insecurity and fear.
You don’t want to be known as a failure, so you push to keep up with the Joneses.

When we get home from work and dribe through our gates, we go into our homes, lock the doors, set the alarm, trun on the air conditioning and watch TV safe from the scary world.

The questions this begs, of course...
Is fear "natural" in human beings?
Is fear beneficial in human beings?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1341860#post1341860

I don't think that "fight or flight" necessarily equates to fear.

From the thread I linked to...

To those who say that fear is a normal, healthy thing, I'm not so sure I agree.
The state or condition we generally refer to as "fear" is really a state of heightened sensual awareness.
Your heart pumps faster racing blood to your extremeties.
Your hair stands on end, making your skin more sensitive to touch.
Smells and sounds are more distinct.
Your vision is sharper and more vivid.
Your mind is moving faster.
Your reflexes are keener.
Adrenaline production ramps up.

When we sense danger, our bodies go into this heightened state of awareness, so we can better cope with the situation at hand - whether we choose fight or flight, we will perform better.

People have condition responses to this reaction. They understand, on some visceral, instinctive level, that this is a reaction to danger and the state of heightened awareness sets them into panic mode.
The fear comes from lack of self-confidence, past failures, insecurities, wariness of the unknown and other weaknesses that have been ingrained in the psyche over the years.
A heightened state of awareness is a normal, healthy thing.
Fear is a man-made weakness.

Avoidance of pain and danger is not fear.
I know that if I place my hand upon a burning ember it will hurt.
Therefore I try to avoid placing my hand upon burning embers.
This does not mean that I have a fear of being burnt, or a fear of burning embers.

I know that if I fall off a steep cliff I will most likely be severely hurt.
I am therefore careful when I am on steep cliffs, I do not avoid them.

I don't have any desire to kill myself, but nor do I have a fear of death.

I do have a complete absense of fear.

What benefit is there?
Personally: Calm, self confidence, self assuredness, peacfulness, happiness, lack of worry, lack of stress, lack of defensiveness, the list goes on and on.
On a wider scale?

If all people conquered fear, all those things that fear cause, including war, would go away.
What would the world be like of all people had... Calm, self confidence, self assuredness, peacfulness, happiness, lack of worry, lack of stress, lack of defensiveness, the list goes on and on?

If you feel no fear, you can weigh the situation in a clear-headed, intelligent manner.
If you take a risk, it is a calculated one that you soberly considered.
Your judgement is not clouded by the irrationality of fear.

Thus we have war and many other social ailments directly tied to it.

Our fear is what makes us sheep to corrupt predators who would be powerless if not for the support of the masses.
If it wasn't for fear, insecurity and vulnerability, people wouldn't follow these "leaders".

Like I said, fear is a political tool.

If people were free of fear, there would be no war.

By the way, I also reject the notion that “selfish” = “bad”.

From a recent post of mine…

True, honest, selfishness leads to happiness.
If you lie, cheat and steal, that is not truly selfish, because you are propagating such behavior, and helping to create a world in which you must worry about such things and protect yourself - not to mention, you are doing yourself a disservice.

I like to use a traffic analogy.
Rush-hour traffic - millions of people on the road and in a rush to get home.
The self-absorbed person suffering from myopia and tunnel vision would try and cut people off, sneak up the shoulder, merge out of turn and anything else to get over.
If everyone, however, were to leave adequate distance in front of them, take turns during a merge, leave a closing lane as soon as convenient and drive with a modicum of common courtesy there would be a LOT less traffic problems, people would be less bitter about the commute and everyone would get home much sooner.
The selfish route results in a benefit for all - the self-absorbed route results in just the opposite.

The abbot of a Buddhist Monastery in California once said to me, "Don't wish people misfortune. Wish even those you consider your enemy the purest happiness. If they are truly happy, they would not hurt others. Wishing happiness to others is a selfish thing." (paraphrased)

In conclusion, lixluke is a moron.

 

Yes, and the reason humans are not promoting life extending technology is because they are addicted to that fear of mortality.

This is true. I think it's more that people fear each other, than simply fearing mortality, but you are right about fear being a major motivator.

This is where we begin to disagree.

I disagree with this also. I think humans are addicted to war, addicted to fear, and addicted to hatred. If we don't want to be this way, we can seek treatment, but it's like with smoking, it feels so good that we have to do it, damn the consequences.

Which people? I think a lot of people support the war because of emotions, not for any rational reason, and not because of the sales pitch. Every 20 years we have another war, and always the exact same sales pitch, yet people keep falling for it not because people are all vulnerable to it, but because some people actually like war, and want war, and are addicted to war. Some people would have perpetual war forever if they could. Some people would want it to be a war just to survive each day, and you even have anarchists who want there to be a war of all against all in complete social darwinism.

Your theory explains the naive types who may not really know what war is about or who may change their mind, but there always seems to be some who never change their mind about war and are always for it no matter how unpopular or what direction the war takes. Some people would support a war to the bitter end, to the point where there might be no humans left. Some humans during the cold war were so hawkish that they did want there to be nuclear holocaust.

Cooler heads prevailed, we avoided a nuclear holocaust, but it does not change the fact that some humans can't want to push the button or pull the trigger and I don't think that can be explained by fear, or in any rational way other than war addiction.

I'm not so sure about that... but that war was before my time. I think most people however during the 1980s were more worried about people in their own neighborhoods destroying their way of life than communists. People were more worried about the Japanese than the communists. The communism fear did reach a peak during the McCarthy era, but after that I'm not sure if the masses were for example supporting Vietnam war because of the communists.

I find that hard to believe. I think people are scared of people, and in some cases people might be afraid of their leaders. We assume that everyone is always afraid, but if people are really scared shitless why not bring back a draft?

Give them an enemy to hate and you'll organize the masses. I don't think Jesus or Martin Luther King were killed because people feared them. Explain that.

You keep forgetting that a lot of people simply hate other groups of people and will keep inventing wars out of anger.

They'd follow those leaders if they hated billions of people.

Why exactly would people believe some complete stranger is going to protect them? Leader or not, why should the leader give a damn about you?

Yeah typical, people are their own worst nightmare, fear and hate themselves, and are addicted to it.

Yes but we have to do this because the leaders made the world competitive like this to keep us safe? The hell? Why do people trust the leadership?

The problem with the "Us" vs "Them" thinking, is that there is no "Us". It's you and yours(your family), vs everyone elses families. There is no way to make it into just two groups, or into an Us and Them, because large groups of people who don't know each other, are competitors by default, and groups of people who do know each other and who are friends, thats a network. It's your network vs all.

And for people who don't have friends or families, then it's social darwinism to the extreme, it's every man for his or herself. The only reason the trick works is because leaders convince the masses to believe that complete strangers are protecting them.

Your friends may protect you, your family members may protect you, but a complete stranger is not watching your back. It's just not like that and you shouldnt expect it to be.

So most of the people who trust the leaders, and the complete strangers, get screwed by those very same people. Why? Well because they didn't even know these people.


I think people are irrational and too emotional to make decisions, relying too much on instincts instead of on reason.

 

You are asserting that war is a functional aspect of humankind, and not a disfunctional aspect of humankind. You assert that its functional purpose is population control.

 

You can't separate the two, Lix, and you, of all people, should know that.

Baron Max

 

War is functional in that everything has some function. However the violent aspects of war are unneccessary when we have the technology we have today.

If the war is about control, then you don't need to kill lots of people to achieve that. If the war is about power then you don't need to kill lots of people to take power. If the war is about land, or space, you don't need to kill lots of people to take land or space.

There is no rational reason for violent wars at this time. There is no rational reason for this much death and destruction unless some people prefer that route.

You can get people to do what you want without destroying entire towns, cities, countries, and hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives wasted. So violent wars are totally inefficient.

Even as a form of population control, it's easier to simply have less kids, and legalize abortion and birth control, than to violently bomb the shit out of people already born. There's no reason for dropping bombs anymore or for any of that. What exactly do those sorts of wars accomplish?

Yet we still keep making nukes, we still keep making bombs, and people still prefer death and destruction even when it's unncessary.