War and peace

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Smokaz]

Fact: we would not be who we are without war and conflict

It's a completely different thing to a) recognize war as a stepping stone in the world's development and it takes a examinating mind to do so, because it's a thinking that easily comes off as disagreeable and 2) to perceive it as a early development necessarily building up our culture without being some kind of renewable method of expanding our scientific and cultural knowledge.

We have no perception of how development without war is, just as our early predecessors had no real concept of what it would be like to live in a society governed by law, money and where you are born in the world. It's far away in our minds for advancements in humanity's "cause" as a whole to happen without cataclysmic events and conflict because thats simply the way we base the theory of our origin and continued development on up until this point. It might be stated that there is no limit to the methods and scale of how we can invent ways to destroy each other but even if we are killing each other with lasers contrary to chucking stones at each other we're still just sharpening our knowledge of how to advance our society by war and conflict. It's a culturally narrow path of evolving.

Think of it in terms of the backstory of Mass Effect , here a superior race of robots wipe out all organic life when it reaches a certain technical zenith which it is guided to through certain paths by artifacts, knowledge and technology left for the next appearing multitudes of life to find. We cannot overly appreciate one path of development by bursts through conflict and war, because undoubtly this blinds us to different paths of advancement.

In a way it is also similar to the path of consumerism and worldly delights, this takes away focus from our real challenges which are not on how to gorge ourselves and to grasp the holy grail of absolute comfort as closely as possible, but that we are but one tiny speck of sand in a vast universe and amazing discoveries might await us. Consider the enormous cost of advancing our space flight yet so much resources and time are spent furthering causes of luxury in a way that is excessive.

If competition and selection, unification by external threats or challenges is what drives humanity then it surely should be led into the path of leaving Earth. Space is definitely a hostile environment and travel through it is intensely difficult. But what is there for us here on earth? Diminishing resources and a population we cannot indefinitely support by today's methods and a culture so inwardly focused that massive amounts of resources are spent on things our forefathers would have dismissed as weaknesses and dead ends of development.

Does this mean everyone should be a rocket scientist, or a space engineer? Not at all. It means that society as a whole has to narrow its scope towards a real, species-wide movement towards NOT being narrowly caught up in wasting our precious resources. It's very unlikely that enlightenment about the nature of existence will be expanded or see a golden age by patiently staying on earth. Everyone has to pitch in to make society efficient and as meaningful and inventive as possible to find solutions.

War has been a stepping stone in our development and we should not resent the things war created, it would be akin to dismissing the sacrifice of those killed in inter-human conflict no matter how pointless it seemed at the time, if conflict indeed propels us forward as you say, Spartan. But the unifying cause and outside threat should can easily fit the bill of the stagnation we face rolling in a cradle filled with droppings from our childhood, warring over the bits left to us by ages past.

[Spartan_Marine88]

War has been a stepping stone in our development and we should not resent the things war created, it would be akin to dismissing the sacrifice of those killed in inter-human conflict no matter how pointless it seemed at the time, if conflict indeed propels us forward as you say, Spartan.

I like how you said all that Smokaz, and i agree with it.

I am not a violent man, but it is apparent that some of our greatest moments are in times of war or great strife.

[AmPM]

If you want to think about it this way...

Progress is required for the overall health of the species, eventually this planet will die.

War is the greatest instigator of scientific progress, either because things are developed during a war, or because they are developed with the idea that they will give superiority over an enemy if there is a war. Eventually (and already, though not on the scale that will come) we will be waging a mass war over what remaining resources this world has, yes it will happen, no, we cannot replace most of them, and yes, its our own fault for breeding so fast.
 
People are not valuable other than to the people that know and care about them. If someone I don't know and has no impact on my life dies, then it does not matter to me in the least. I may feel slightly bad for about 5 minutes though. Also, if some fucker shoots at me with his damned AK you better be right I'm going to engage him to kill, him and any of his buddies nearby whether or not the weapon they have in hand has been discharged.

People = replaceable in the grand scheme. Progress towards our species not being dependent upon this world = much more important.

As for who chooses who lives and dies; it's whomever has the most power. Survival has nothing to do with morals, stop including what is moral and what is not in this discussion, it is not a factor. Your beliefs or those of your society count for nothing when another group doesn't share them.

[Malgoroth]

Dude... AmPm... Smokaz countered all of that in the previous post.

We are not destined for god damned Ragnarok. What is it with this fatalist, 'war is the only way' attitude here? This is exactly the line of thinking that will damn you to that fate. It'll be a self fulfilling prophecy.

[AmPM]

Believing that everyone will play by the same rules is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of.

The UN is proof of that. Hell, we can't even control some 3rd world Warlords in Africa and keep them from waging a war on other tribes.

When you have your perfect world with no real military forces and someone decides fuck this, you can end up like Europe in WW2 again.

[Malgoroth]

Yeah the world is shit. It sucks. It really does. But there's no reason WE can't be better. Who says we can't defend ourselves and simultaneously develop an alternative fuel source? Nuclear Fusion? Who says WE can't expand into space?

If America is truly a world leader then why don't we lead by example?

[Spartan_Marine88]

Believing that everyone will play by the same rules is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of.

The UN is proof of that. Hell, we can't even control some 3rd world Warlords in Africa and keep them from waging a war on other tribes.

When you have your perfect world with no real military forces and someone decides fuck this, you can end up like Europe in WW2 again.

Lets not forget, they figured out 3 things in Africa.

1. Starting a genocide while a major trial is going on will make sure the west doesn't care.

2. Cut off peoples body parts in front of news crews and the western media won't show it.

3. Kill a few American soldiers and down a Helicopter in combat using dirty tactics, and home support will drop forcing them to pull out.

[Malgoroth]

....and what exactly does that have to do with anything we've been talking about?

[Smokaz]

If you want to think about it this way...

Progress is required for the overall health of the species, eventually this planet will die.

War is the greatest instigator of scientific progress, either because things are developed during a war, or because they are developed with the idea that they will give superiority over an enemy if there is a war. Eventually (and already, though not on the scale that will come) we will be waging a mass war over what remaining resources this world has, yes it will happen, no, we cannot replace most of them, and yes, its our own fault for breeding so fast.
 
People are not valuable other than to the people that know and care about them. If someone I don't know and has no impact on my life dies, then it does not matter to me in the least. I may feel slightly bad for about 5 minutes though. Also, if some fucker shoots at me with his damned AK you better be right I'm going to engage him to kill, him and any of his buddies nearby whether or not the weapon they have in hand has been discharged.

People = replaceable in the grand scheme. Progress towards our species not being dependent upon this world = much more important.

As for who chooses who lives and dies; it's whomever has the most power. Survival has nothing to do with morals, stop including what is moral and what is not in this discussion, it is not a factor. Your beliefs or those of your society count for nothing when another group doesn't share them.

War, conflict and catastrophic events are what we have been randomly given depending on how you see the creation of the variables that become the origins of modern society. A lot of it we created for ourselves. To dismiss that other paths of cultural and technological advancement was/is possible is entirely acceptable, but it's our experience and history not the only imaginable path. And again as this is so deeply etched into human society its viewed upon with the same certainty we once did displayed towards a round earth placed in the center of our solar system. 'War is progress' is a sentence that leaves out so much.

Not being able to overcome conflict on earth is another indication of how primitive our society is. We are well informed idiots. It's like a worldwide prisoners dilemma where people condemn each other freely. Things take time however.. and are we to adhere to this conflict-progress line of thought more war is needed and we need to come closer to the breaking point to realize that we have to change. In that way war's only purpose is to end war, either through annhiliation or through reaching close enough to the spot where things change.

And humans either single or groups are only as replaceable as we think we know they are. We are quick to dismiss people without knowing their worth, a quick glance and some words and most people have (for them) a working understanding of what another person means and is. It's a elimination game being played blindfolded. How accurately do we gauge other people's worth without being them or studying them their entire life? This leads us to the realization that life in its variation and possibility is precious and that as much possible potential must be guarded. And this is not unifiable with death and mutual destruction. Its not even unifiable with one side completely destroying the other unless they knew who they removed. And its ABSOLUTELY not unifiable with a world where the majority is not able to fulfill their potential and where petty wars and self-absorbing veer us away from paths we should know and understand is more important, and without doubt overpopulation and our current culture plays a large part in swaying populations into this kind of existence.

"Believing that everyone will play by the same rules is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of."

I dont see how believing in war being a unifying cause is possible to put on the same table as nobody being able to agree. There are certainly easier emotions to invoke in humans related to war, namely their egoism, their hatred, their fear. A large part of modern society thrives on insecurity and how the complexity of today's society make people easier to goad into convenient, seemingly good choices.

And realization of what is roughly our real situation isn't going to happen instantly to the same generation at the same time, unless it's some kind of transcending-belief cataclysmic event causing it. Some people will be ahead or "wrong" in other's eyes in time before the majority is able to follow. That's another historic lesson from the spring of humanity, that you don't become prophet among your peers and that challenging, demanding leaps in development have been attempted to be repressed by the established powers over and over again. We still have a whole world filled with religious nuts for instance.

As lonely and cold the universe must seem for the disillusioned man staring out into the void with the dawning realization that elephant gods and wine-to-water deities will not save him, at least it clears his mind of the distractions of doubt and he sees what he can do here and now to advance society.

If man has many poor traits that seem to occur more often than his good one's, at least individual happiness and progress has been proven to be attainable. I dont think anyone sincerely doubts that its technically possible to be happy and productive, given the opportunity. It's about narrowing the path to this, reduce distractions. It's not about becoming a extremist in any way. The vector reaches its point not on the power of it's movement alone, it also needs direction. It's the lack of species-wide direction when many are well informed about existence that intrigues me the most, if the existence of deities and gods is not completely abolished it's at least very convincing at this point, and can't be said to be much weaker in strength than our insight into the fact that resources on earth arent limitless, that it's largely explored and that if we cannot invent some kind of Eden here on earth where everything is doable we need to move on in the form of a scavenger and consumer, at the very least to find new targets for our destructive culture to absorb.

[Smokaz]

Phew. That was one hell of surge. Edit complete.

- SmokazChannelingTheSpiritOfWind

[Masacree]

If you want to think about it this way...

Progress is required for the overall health of the species, eventually this planet will die.

No, progress is what got us into the ecological catastrophe in the first place. And, the drive to progress is what is going to prevent us from saving ourselves.

People are not valuable other than to the people that know and care about them. If someone I don't know and has no impact on my life dies, then it does not matter to me in the least. I may feel slightly bad for about 5 minutes though. Also, if some fucker shoots at me with his damned AK you better be right I'm going to engage him to kill, him and any of his buddies nearby whether or not the weapon they have in hand has been discharged.

People = replaceable in the grand scheme. Progress towards our species not being dependent upon this world = much more important.

As for who chooses who lives and dies; it's whomever has the most power. Survival has nothing to do with morals, stop including what is moral and what is not in this discussion, it is not a factor. Your beliefs or those of your society count for nothing when another group doesn't share them.

What the fuck. Survival isn't inherently valuable. What gives humyn life value is abstract notions like morality, justice, and knowledge. Sacrificing those for humyn life is silly and contradictory. (This is a really good quote)

As bro #4 Daniel Callahan writes,¹

For all these reasons, it is possible to counterpoise over against the need for survival a "tyranny of survival." There seems to be no imaginable evil which some group is not willing to inflict on another for the sake of survival, no rights, liberties or dignities which it is not ready to suppress. It is easy, of course, to recognize the danger when survival is falsely and manipulatively invoked. Dictators never talk about their aggressions, but only about the need to defend the fatherland, to save it from destruction at the hands of its enemies. But my point goes deeper than that. It is directed even at legitimate concern for survival, when that concern is allowed to reach an intensity which would ignore, suppress or destroy other fundamental human rights and values. The potential tyranny of survival as a value is that it is capable, if not treated sanely, of wiping out all other values. Survival can become an obsession and a disease, provoking a destructive singlemindedness that will stop at nothing. We come here to the fundamental moral dilemma. If, both biologically and psychologically, the need for survival is basic to man, and if survival is the precondition for any and all human achievements, and if no other rights make much sense without the premise of a right to life - then how will it be possible to honor and act upon the need for survival without, in the process, destroying everything in human beings which makes them worthy of survival. To put it more strongly, if the price of survival is human degradation, then there is no moral reason why an effort should be make to ensure that survival. It would be the Pyrrhic victory to end all Pyrrhic victories.

Yet it would be the defeat of all defeats if, because human beings could not properly manage their need to survive, they succeeded in not doing so. Either way, then, would represent a failure, and one can take one's pick about which failure would be worse, that of survival at the cost of everything decent in man or outright extinction. Somehow we need to find better alternatives, if I may be allowed to understate the matter. We need to survive as races, groups, nations and as a species, but in a way which preserves a wide range of other human values, and in a way which is as sensitive about means as about ends.

1. THE TYRANNY OF SURVIVAL. Daniel Callahan

[Spartan_Marine88]

No, progress is what got us into the ecological catastrophe in the first place.

There is no ecological catastrophe, the world always cycles through the same states. It starts off cold, builds to a certain temperature then freezes and repeats

Survival isn't inherently valuable.

I value my survival, and those i care about, you try to take it away and i will have no issues about killing you. And by human law, it will be moral, and justified.

[Masacree]

There is no ecological catastrophe, the world always cycles through the same states. It starts off cold, builds to a certain temperature then freezes and repeats

I value my survival, and those i care about, you try to take it away and i will have no issues about killing you. And by human law, it will be moral, and justified.

Bro, do you read anything I write?

[Smokaz]

How does one even begin to measure the value of humanity, it's like a child who thinks it's an adult claim sureness of it's coming value as a adult, yet it is also like a  dying man imaging how his many coming years of adult life will turn out and what it will produce.. this is escapes the scope of our possible understanding of both ourselves as a species and a individual because the choices we made willingly or automatically (depending on how one sees free will) have repercussions and results in a magnitude we don't even appreciate or know a tiny bit of.

[Custos]

Eugenics is the only true answer.

[AmPM]

lol

So basically, it comes down to a guess.

Do we continue on our current trend which has seen humanity prosper in ways unimaginable to our ancestors but which could lead to our utter destruction, or choose a new path that could also lead to our utter destruction.

Along that line of reasoning, neither is better than the other. Since we can't begin to guess which might be the better long term solution neither side is valid.

People talking about morals have never been in a situation where their survival or someones they care for is at stake.

[Smokaz]

This didn't really start out as a pure war and conflict vs progress. A large part of the point I tried to get across was how modern society is excessive in its nurture of dysfunctional culture, or rather culture that steals attention and resources away from more important things. If this was improved the warmongers would be happier too, more resources and people dedicated to duking it out. But I dont see the point in choosing this over space expansion, nor do I believe its impossible for the world to unite towards this goal, but I dont think our civilization or our overall culture has reached the point where it can be done. Anyways not sure if it was directed at my posts heading off now, gnight

[Custos]

Nuke the whales... that's the first step in the answer of "Eugenics" selfish whales eat all our fish and goddamn popcorn shrimp! Those bastards! Furthermore directing all our animosity towards a common foe will unite the countries and create world peace. The Japanese and French know what they're doing we should follow their lead!

[Custos]

That's modern society for you. The world should implode in on itself it would probably increase the IQ of space

[Unkn0wn]

Topic split from the one about Australia's flood.