Is THIS the mess you refer to as your ideas? Are you SURE you want me to respond to it and waste both of our time? Instead, why don't you trying to rationally address the arguments I've provided? I guess that's asking too much eh?
See nothing is going anywhere , Im saying war dosnt profit Man kind, your saying it does and is needed. and wow instead of agreeing on somthing we have moved onto insulting eachother how wonderfull... although thanks for admitting that war is terrible Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
peace comes at the price of war. good from the terrible. calling it terrible is no "admission", it's obvious. who wants it? i don't want to have to shit either, but to stay alive I have to eat. shitting is disgusting, but I have to do it every day. stare at the yin yang for a while in contemplation of this.
War has never in history brought peace. All war does is redistribute conflict. Take World War II, for instance. The "peace" that it brought hasn't stopped killing people yet. If we presume that the Universe is made specifically for any given individual, yes, peace can be found through war. If we presume that the Universe was specifically made for any one group of people (e.g. Americans, Christians, Jews, &c.), peace can certainly be found for a time. But if it was real peace, then the effects of maintaining that peace would not eventually come back and knock down their towers. If war brought peace, we'd be done with war until the next deliberate threat to the species. I have peace because someone else kills and dies. I have comfort because someone else suffers. We are not victims of the Universe. If it's peace we want, we could try making it instead of seeking it in its exact opposite.
cooperation leads to a much stronger peace but is much harder to make. but that fact dosnt meen its not worth considering.
Claiming that war is based on value is a bit of a stretch. There are many reasons for war... the best one being, "kill the other guy before he kills you". It's about power and the expansion of the state most of the time, sometimes about glory and natural resources, although there have been Religious wars. Value is not necessarily subjective, and conflicting values are not inevitable. The fact that billions of people in one place can more or less share the same values is evidence enough. Although values diverge according to the organism and its variety (in culture, for instance), values are nearly always based on the propagation of life. The end of war is really a simple matter. One possibility is to have a world government or federation that monopolizes all military power, reducing conflict to a 'police action'. In a highly advanced society, this might evolve into something like "The Day The Earth Stood Still" or "Childhood's End" where a single non-human entity is given ultimate police power and any violence is instantly neutralized or met with extreme consequences. The MAD of the atomic age is a primitive version of the idea of a system that prevents war. Dangerous though it may be, there's a strong argument that the cold war stayed cold because of nuclear arms... furthermore it becomes difficult for any one nation-state to invade another with nuclear arms. Conflict in our day and age has become a matter of 'police actions' against rogue states and the battle against terrorism... any 'real' war would result in nuclear holocaust. And the military hegemony of the US only intensifies this. But even if the EU were to develop its on force to rival the US.... the two armies could never actually fight one another. China has a million man army, but those men are nothing but meat now... they don't matter one shit. Until the US develops a missile shield of course.... then the shit's gonna fly. The other way would be a profusion of wealth and resources, given by technology and trade, the likes of which the earth has never seen. Rich, fat men have no need to make war, they only think of making love. Again, the modern reality of globalization points in this direction... war is simply not profitable anymore because nations are connected to each other by arteries of trade, binding them together. But you're right about conflict of ideals, Wesmorris. Only consider for a moment that "value wars" aren't necessarily violent, in fact that sort of thing is going on right now without violence. It's conflict for sure, but not physical war and violence. Philosophy is war.
But isn't that what peace is...? - the time between wars while everyone figures out what they're going to get pissed off about again? See the galactic analogy from a post or few ago. Peace for a while, conflict for a while. Such is the way. Looks good on paper, but it doesn't seem to work out in reality. That people value things differently will always bring conflict. It would be nice if we could learn not to kill each other over such conflicts, but apparently that's not possible at this time - as some people do not value your or my life as much as our death.
That is an expression of value. How is either case not value? Can you demonstrate something to the contrary? Evidence of what? Sure we can all get along until somoene values what they gain by your death more than your life. But in humans, it's all abstracted. My hairstyle can be integrated into my instinct to survive - reasonably even. I mean, some people value a packet of crack more than the survival of other people, so "nearly always" doesn't really solve any problems. I disagree. The end of war is the end of life I think. I'm not sure about that, but it seems to me that a world of homogenous value would mean the death of the species as we know it. Easier said than done. What kind of war would it take to consolodate power in that manner? A world of sheep eh? Hmmm. I don't know if that would be "advancement". Seems inherently wrong to me. Note however, that it does not prevent war, it just prevents MAD. It does however, temper war as you mention below. Agreed. Hmm... I wouldn't say that, but okay. You're right though that a million man army isn't what it used to be. I hope you're wrong. Nuking the other side of the world would still fuck us all up in a myriad of ways. Ha. That depends on the rich fat man. Many think only of power (more money), because they can buy all the sex they want. I agree for the most part. Of course. Remember "commitment to premise". If you're in a fervor over that which you value, you may well kill to get it. It can happen to anyone. It depends on perceived circumstance. But it is partly physical war and violence. If we are to survive as a species, we'll have to overcome MAD on a much more intimate level. As energy tech increases, the power of the killer increases the same. Eventually, one crazy bastard could hypothetically destroy the whole world by unplugging his shaver, causing a chain reaction in his fusion power source and blowing everything up. Stupid example, but I'm sure you take the point.
Pardon me for jumping in without reading much, but: War cuts down at least some population growth and helps deal with unemployment (take US and Great Depression as an example). Of course, larger scale of combat is necessary. If only a few hundred US troops die it's nothing. Also, war helps in development of technology. Ah, pardon me for being cold, but it's an argument!
As tiassa says, it does disperse conflict as well. That's more accurate than "resolving divergence of value". It disperses that divergence for some period of time. Some of it gets resolved, since some of the competing values die in the process. Can't we all just get along? Maybe eventually.
Interests inevitably conflict, so conflict is inevitable. Conflict is part of human nature. We'd be bored simply getting along, and then some disaster would happen if someone turned out different by accident. Besides, sometimes compromise isn't the best thing.
I believe the proper counter is that perhaps there are ways to resolve conflict without violence. Rules for instance. But obviously, humanity doesn't agree on the rules just yet. Perhaps never.
Look, today's conflicts started out peaceful and fair. I'll give you a short scenario: Chechnya: We want to be a separate country. Russia: No. Third party, with a halo over it's head: Let us compromise! Chechnya gets semi-independent under such and such conditions (1996). ----neither side is happy---- Chechnya: we want separation Russia: if you don't shut up and be good Russians we'll bulldozer over you! If you could easily draw rules, we'd have no problems.
War is the intelligence from within mans stupidity. We spend alot of our time, money and technology on machines of war all so we can blow people up, way to go humans, ya fucking idiots.
Chechnya: We want to set up a muslim extremist nation and harbour drugs and kidnap people for our slave trade. Russia: No. Chechnya gets independents and a so called cease fire after maskhadov holds a maternity ward hostage.(1996). Chechnya: *invades dagistan saying they want them to be separated also Dagistan:no leave us alone. Russia: Thats it your back with us. war starts again... yey.
Im not saying cooperation is possible but wouldnt it be nice if the world could sustain peace through meens other than war? yes it would
and anothr post you go on about population control?...heard of BIRTH control?....rather than blitzin some poor fkers? and you reckon we'd be BORED if we didn't have war? so, right i am bored. i need to blow some limbs off of a child. ahhhh, that's better look. when you have conflicts in your family, do you want to agent orange them? we are talking modern warfare. please think out what you philosophize about. otherwise yer gonna turn into a wes morris
