Man succeeded because of his social, communicative, and toolmaking abilities. His ancestors were physically stronger than him. He's descended from nerds. Besides, I still believe in violence and strength... only in the form of police. In a way that's a perfection of violence and strength. We specialize. Most of us are free to be weak and non-violent, and do other things with our lives, other things that make humans successful, without worrying. But our specialists.... wield destructive power greater than any of our ancestors. In many ways we're far more 'violent' in our modern forms. And usually what we marvel at, is the peace that follows it. I know that. Why does it matter? Am I going to kill a man, and risk my own death, because he says 'tomahto', and I say 'tomayto'? The idea that war follows from a mere 'difference in values' is sheer absurdity. It takes a very special kind of difference in values to produce war. If a man values his survival, or even his pleasure, he very naturally wouldn't value war. Because war is likely to get him cut open, destroy his life and achievements, cause extreme physical pain. Especially modern, atomic war. Its sheer insanity. Nothing is 'proven' in terms of this discussion. That statement is irrelevant. Which is why peace would realistically be achieved rather by things that we can trust in to a greater degree. Organic unity, shared values, force of law, co-dependence, physical necessity. All things that you can trust in to behave nicely and predictably... because you build it that way. Humans are naturally untrustworthy, stupid and warlike... only human systems and inventions may be perfected. Like the US constitution. Oh, and human training and the cultivation of pacifism may also be perfected.
Man succeding among animals wasnt because of strenth it was because of our power to create, in any physical term man is pathetic. And people still dont get it, in a fully cooperative world people like hitler would'nt show up, im talking about a complete ideal, but Im not saying its possible, just that it would be good. "countries are what they are today because of violence" yes ok and its pritty pathetic, maybe through peace more study would be spent into the survival of man , science health care etc, insted of killing anyone who tries to compete with you and drastically stunning the development of man kind. Even if every individual Does value his survival above others (I dont , I worry more about my family than myself) it dosnt meen that cooperation is completely impossible, although a mans flaws would'nt let it happen very easily.
One should value the survival of oneself and ones kin more than some average schmuck you don't know. Its healthy and is in itself a way to foster cooperation. As has been mentioned before, the only time people with severe differences will get together as brothers is once they have to face the enemy, be it soldiers or floodwater, and truely fear that they may lose. Turing times of peace and pleanty, the conflict acts to keep a people strong. Strength is worthless if you let it atrophy.
"M O N E Y $$$$$, that's what wars are all about." Some not all. Sometimes people are just tired of getting shitted on- well I guess we could call that a Revolution, but is that not a form of War?? Some wars were needed. Maybe we could call these "Anti-Wars" so that way you can keep your "All war is bad" mentality. Im sure the Chinese, Koreans, and the Phillipino were quite happy that we went to War with Japan. Same with the English and the French. Maybe even the Ethiopians (I mean they were invaded by Italy). So maybe from now on you should note the difference?
War is pretty good for weaponized smallpox. And to think there are people who would eradicate it. http://www.who.int/emc/diseases/smallpox/slideset/images/Spox_015.jpg
I know this discussion has moved forward from the necessity of war, but I have a question for Wes regarding the anthropic principle. If what is inevitable is necessary, are murder, rape, and despotism necessary? Should we get rid of cops, or have an acceptable number of rapes every year, since they are necessary? Since hieracrhical, non-democratic governments seem to form inevitably, shouldn't we stop with this attempt to democratize everyone? If this has already been covered here, just say so, and I'll read through.
Murder, rape and despotism are apparently necessary. Just ask those to indulge in them. To me, they seem symptomatic of animals that seek to control their environment in order to gaurentee their survival. It's the invidual purveyor's divergent alignment with what is good for the whole that makes us think of those things as bad. Even that appearance (of them being bad) is necessary, or the larger group would have cannibalized (or extinctificated)itself into weakness... and perhaps not have gained the success we have now (as a species). Like I said, I think war is part of a bigger phenomenon. You can't just wish it away, as it's demonstrative of something fundamental about the system. That doesn't mean you shouldn't strive to avoid it. I don't think so, no. The reason is somewhat complicated, but I'll summarize: As weapons/power technology becomes more and more sophisticated, the size of the group that must be aligned in value to perhaps destroy the world as we know it becomes smaller and smaller. Even now a few men have this power. As that power becomes more and more accessable (which is inevitable to some extent), the possibility of a REAL freakin LOON getting ahold of it becomes higher and higher. (foresees cracks about bush). A smaller world is a more dangerous world in many respects. As such, to ensure our survival the leaders of our nation (as they are charged with the success of the nation) must feel the pressure to control (or at least, be able to "trust") the international environment to the best of their ability. Given the perception of a terrorist threat from that area of the world, spreading democracy there seems like a safe bet for a myriad of reasons. The main two I think of are distracting them (from their potentially negative intentions towards us) and aligning with them in some area (motivating them to relate instead of thinking of us as pigs). That's a long discussion though. *shrug*
Any war is hostility. Any hostility within prohibits to reach Nirvana in ones existence. Therefore war is a dilusion through which some desires are wanted to be fulfilled. There is no tranquility in war only an orgy of petty minds.
I do not want to reach Nirvana, and I suppose many don't. Life with no desires is a bore. And I do not seek to join the higher being. Life is fun as it is, and I love it. Life includes violence, harshness, control, obedience in many aspects. You need to know what pain feels like in order to recognize pleasure.
I would fight nirvana or utopia tooth and claw. I like my want and desire, thank you very much. I prefer a species eternally straining for new heights to one that has found eternal peace. If war, pain, and ruthless competition will help us reach new heights and glory... I welcome them with open arms. History shows us that they do.
For what do you need that glory? Is that height in releasing a laser guided missile? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Nirvana is no utopia, but a state of awarness. It can not be forced upon and it can not be given, it can only be achieved. Thus it can also not be wared against.
