Will there always be war?
What do you guys think? I think that someday we're going to outgrow killing each other and come up with a better solution. I have no idea how to do this though.
- #1
- 20 December 2010 - 12:07 AM
Too many people embrace their violent side for war to ever go away, along with the fact that the only reason war ever breaks out (barring religion, another reason I don't think war will ever disappear) is because diplomacy won't work will make this an unfortunately impossible pipe dream (in my mind, at least). Some may say "But what if everyone was under one rule? then there would be no one to fight!" Except there would always be people who would not accept that rule, either for political, religious, or selfish reasons, so periodical uprisings would be inevitable
- #2
- 20 December 2010 - 12:17 AM
- NoCreativeNames
- Member
There will be war for as long as people are able to have their own opinions/beliefs.
- #4
- 20 December 2010 - 12:23 AM
It was one of the dumbest ideas we ever had. You know, people in most of North america and Europe are peaceful to each other. We can't be that different!
I maintain that there's gotta be hope.
I maintain that there's gotta be hope.
- #5
- 20 December 2010 - 12:24 AM
- CaptainBaconMan
- Member
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”
John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 – 1873)
What do you guys think of that? Is he wise, or is I just an arrogant shortsighted statement from a bygone age? It's defiantly true we live in a different world than he did, but does his argument still hold validity?
John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 – 1873)
What do you guys think of that? Is he wise, or is I just an arrogant shortsighted statement from a bygone age? It's defiantly true we live in a different world than he did, but does his argument still hold validity?
This post has been edited by CaptainBaconMan: 20 December 2010 - 12:35 AM
- #6
- 20 December 2010 - 12:34 AM
- ILB
- secretly a man
Member
Quote
You know, people in most of North america and Europe are peaceful to each other. We can't be that different!
Entirely untrue. May I suggest that both the World Wars were, in fact, fought majorly on European soil, and with forces from all the Earth's continents? Also, numerous wars have been fought in America (see: Canada/USA conflict, GB/USA conflict). The most recent example I can think of that had a major impact, is the breakdown of Yugoslavia and the end of the Cold War, which did, in fact, end with full-out armed conflict in Eastern Europe - this happened early in the 20th century. Oh, and Georgia was attacked by Russia as late as 2008/2009 (I do not remember which). Not to forget the continuous fighting in Ireland - admittedly, this one has cooled, however.
Also, allow me to remind you that the United States, as well as many European countries, send troops to wars and battles all across the world. Africa is wrought with tribal conflict, yes, and countries like Afghanistan and Iraq are currently in disarray from long-time fighting, but you cannot say that they are battling each other while we are not.
Diplomatically, there are so many issues that they cannot possibly be resolved by holding hands and singing songs. I wish they could, but it would take some external force, and a change of the human nature, to stop all wars.
- #7
- 20 December 2010 - 12:37 AM
CaptainBaconMan, on 20 December 2010 - 12:34 AM, said:
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”
John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 – 1873)
What do you guys think of that? Is he wise, or is I just an arrogant shortsighted statement from a bygone age? It's defiantly true we live in a different world than he did, but does his argument still hold validity?
John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 – 1873)
What do you guys think of that? Is he wise, or is I just an arrogant shortsighted statement from a bygone age? It's defiantly true we live in a different world than he did, but does his argument still hold validity?
It sounds like something the imperialists of WW I would say, and the dates are close enough for it to make sense. I object and respond to it as follows:
1) We don't have to fight each other to have causes bigger than ourselves.
2) Nothing for which we're willing to fight? The entire point is that we find other ways to settle our differences.
3) No chance of being free? What a stupid definition of freedom! I'm free, and I've been lucky enough to not have to kill anyone in my life. Let's be free of the misery and death and disease and squalor that war brings!
A crude, shortsighted and archaic view by someone who's obviously not experienced the horrors of TRUE, modern war (not that I have either, but I see and read enough to appreciate it). Let's see what this guy would say after a few months watching kids die in Vietnam / Korea by stepping on land mines while searching for metal to sell to feed their starving families.
John Stuart Mill's opinion makes me sick.
And just for reference, I'm not saying that some wars in the past were unnecessary. WW II obviously had to happen in Europe to STOP some of the horrors going on there.
What I'm getting at is that from now on nobody should let shit like that happen in the first place.
- #8
- 20 December 2010 - 12:45 AM
Have you ever seen someone hurt bad Jerk? Like, really bad?
- #10
- 20 December 2010 - 12:51 AM
- ClosetLucy
- Member
There will always be war. Someday in the future we might have robot soldiers, but either way there will always be war.
- #11
- 20 December 2010 - 12:51 AM
I don't think I'm going to respond unless you're being serious.
- #13
- 20 December 2010 - 01:00 AM
- Junior Boomer
- BCI Member
Nothing to be serious about here, there has always been war, and always will be. It's simple human nature. Although war will become so dangerous that everything may be ended.
- #15
- 20 December 2010 - 01:03 AM
Jerk, on 20 December 2010 - 01:03 AM, said:
Starwatcher, on 20 December 2010 - 01:00 AM, said:
I don't think I'm going to respond unless you're being serious.
Is it so hard to believe that even the value of human life might be a subjective concept?
Yes, it's subjective. I don't need my (our? I'm 99.999 % sure you don't really have that opinion) values to be perfectly objective to argue that human suffering and unneeded death is a bad thing.
At the end of the day, I think it comes down to your definitions. Let's not choose some weird-evil definitions of good, lets build ones that are worth having to us.
We could spend all day debating the relativity of moral values. I've seen strong arguments for both sides, and I'm not sure which one to choose. Besides, the set that we have right now (eg/ murder is a bad thing) seem to work at least partially, it makes sense that there should be an underlying reason for this.
I have a feeling that you'll agree with me when we say that unnecessary death is a bad thing though.
- #16
- 20 December 2010 - 01:11 AM
- #19
- 20 December 2010 - 01:22 AM
I certainly don't like it, but what other way is there to keep world population in control considering everyone wants a kid at some point, and the kids wants kids, and the kids' kids want kids, etc, etc. At least with war it's possible to be oblivious and see some sort of good in it cause I don't think we could agree on genocide ever being a likable thing. At least I can't see it that way. Unless it were genocide of all the cruelest people in the world. But we have yet to exist a team that just gathers up people at the level of Hitler and Lucifer for an everyday living. Not sure if there even is that many people like that.
- #20
- 20 December 2010 - 04:23 AM
we need to all be the same. society argues that this is bad, but "bad" is only what the current moral code views as bad. So, by having a society that is fine with everyone being the same, you have a perfect society! no war, cause no differences to fight over! YAY!
- #21
- 20 December 2010 - 04:26 AM
- *Ninja
- Member
War will only last as long as the level of technology allows it to. Sooner or later, we will be able to truly be able to feel what another is feeling, and once we do, we could never knowingly (barring complete mental imbalance, and even then there would be too few to start a war) harm another person. One possible way is something like a network of minds, but I personally cannot tell how this might work out. the countermeasures to offensive weaponry might just become so effective so as to make war impossible. I thinks it's just a matter of time one way or the other.
- #22
- 20 December 2010 - 04:34 AM
Arc Impulse, on 20 December 2010 - 04:23 AM, said:
I certainly don't like it, but what other way is there to keep world population in control considering everyone wants a kid at some point, and the kids wants kids, and the kids' kids want kids, etc, etc. At least with war it's possible to be oblivious and see some sort of good in it cause I don't think we could agree on genocide ever being a likable thing. At least I can't see it that way. Unless it were genocide of all the cruelest people in the world. But we have yet to exist a team that just gathers up people at the level of Hitler and Lucifer for an everyday living. Not sure if there even is that many people like that.
Killing is wrong.
- #23
- 20 December 2010 - 05:01 AM
SHUT UP !
SHUT UP !
SHUT UP WITH YOUR STUPID TOPICS !
SHUT UP !
SHUT UP WITH YOUR STUPID TOPICS !
- #24
- 20 December 2010 - 05:52 AM
ouch.
- #25
- 20 December 2010 - 06:00 AM
- (nameless)
- *heavy sigh*
Member 
I'm more than pragmatic enough to think that humanity has no hope of finding lasting peace, yet I'm also anti-war...
- #26
- 20 December 2010 - 09:04 AM
- ILB
- secretly a man
Member
Quote
Sooner or later, we will be able to truly be able to feel what another is feeling, and once we do, we could never knowingly (barring complete mental imbalance, and even then there would be too few to start a war) harm another person. One possible way is something like a network of minds, but I personally cannot tell how this might work out.
I doubt this. For one thing, there are many psychological imbalances that disallow people to actually feel what others feel - it is one of the reason we have all these psychopathic mass murderers. In fact, linking together two non-emotionally impaired people will not work, because humans are first and foremost individuals. Social individuals, but still we are far from as similar to each other as a colony of ants. So even though they could be made to feel the same, the experience would be entirely different for them. Also, what if one got sick? ^_^
Quote
the countermeasures to offensive weaponry might just become so effective so as to make war impossible. I thinks it's just a matter of time one way or the other.
This is wrong. No matter how effective a counter might be, the opposition has always developed something that can bypass it. A good example is the world of computer viruses, and there is no way to stop them because those who perpetrate have the full knowledge of what Microsoft (I use them as an example) has done, while Microsoft has no idea what the virus writers have.
This is also true for weaponry, if not even more so. How can one possibly counter the launch of a nuclear weapon, or a hydrogen bomb? How does one defend against chemical warfare such as gas that passes through the skin? And even though weaponry may be more advanced for one side than the other, that does not mean that the most advanced side will win (see: Vietnam).
Also, consider this: How come the most technologically advanced nations on Earth are those that produce the most advanced offensive weapons?
- #27
- 20 December 2010 - 01:56 PM
- Jerk
- Member
I don't care if there will always be war or if mankind makes peace with itself or commits suicide. Me? I'm just passing through. Nothing I say or do in this life will make any contribution to one outcome or the other. I just want to live my life and get it over with. That's all.
- #29
- 20 December 2010 - 08:29 PM
- Mister Nikel
- The Prosecution is always ready your honor.
Member 
War.....War Never Changes.
Okay now that the obligatory quote is out of the way here is my thoughts.
War will exist untill one of these two things happen.
1) One Nation utterly destroys every other nation.
2) All countries agree to merge into "Earth" once our technological level reaches Planetal Terraforming.
First option is much more quicker and likely.
Okay now that the obligatory quote is out of the way here is my thoughts.
War will exist untill one of these two things happen.
1) One Nation utterly destroys every other nation.
2) All countries agree to merge into "Earth" once our technological level reaches Planetal Terraforming.
First option is much more quicker and likely.
- #30
- 20 December 2010 - 08:45 PM
- Mister Nikel
- The Prosecution is always ready your honor.
Member
Apply terror to the masses. No Civil War.
This post has been edited by Mister Nikel: 20 December 2010 - 08:53 PM
- #32
- 20 December 2010 - 08:53 PM
THIS TOPIC IS MAKING ME ANGRRRRYYYYYY !!!!
- #35
- 20 December 2010 - 09:05 PM
- Sean
- Member
Quote
Ah. We are back in the society of 1984. ^_^
Yep. Hell, there have been cases where the new history textbooks are written to say that Suddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 and that is why we attacked Iraq. Fox News has the Fear tactics covered and they have supposedly become the most watched news station in the country.
This post has been edited by Sean: 20 December 2010 - 09:14 PM
- #37
- 20 December 2010 - 09:13 PM
War is a natural human instinct, stemming from a desire to be "alpha male". So until Humanity transcends such feral urges, yes, there will be war.
- #38
- 20 December 2010 - 09:16 PM
- ILB
- secretly a man
Member
Quote
Yep. Hell, there have been cases where the new history textbooks are written to say that Suddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 and that is why we attacked Iraq.
Oh dear. Really? That is one of the most silly things I have ever heard of from a textbook.
- #39
- 20 December 2010 - 09:21 PM
Wow, thats screwed up. I've read a few crappy textbooks, but nothing that bad yet.
- #40
- 20 December 2010 - 09:23 PM
- Sean
- Member
It is a lose, lose situation. War isn't a desirable outcome, yet it is needed to further peace. Unfortunately, non-violent resistance only gets a person so far, especially in countries with tyrannical rulers. Even if you look at any major treaty that has been made, they are only successful because the powers that be have the military might to royally screw the other over. Humanity rarely learns from the past and as such, is doomed to repeat it...
- #41
- 20 December 2010 - 09:27 PM
I think that in time we're going to figure this out! Perhaps the tyrannical countries are a dying species, and as a species we're going to outgrow them.
It's not really possible to censor information anymore because everybody is on the internet - perhaps similar things will keep happening until we have a better world to live in.
It's not really possible to censor information anymore because everybody is on the internet - perhaps similar things will keep happening until we have a better world to live in.
- #42
- 20 December 2010 - 09:31 PM
- Jerk
- Member
I think war will become more frequent as you don't have to face the enemy as often these days and put yourself and your soldiers less and less at risk. I respect the soldiers who still have to do so, but it seems like they should be obsolete by now. The only reason they still end up in these situations is because it's cheaper to send a human than a drone, for now. Which should be heart-wrenching, I guess.
But I think in the long run it really won't be war as much as it will be Reaper drones turning Afghan hills into parking lots. The industrialized nations will have a monopoly on it, and already do probably. It'll be up to them whether or not it continues.
And it probably will.
But I think in the long run it really won't be war as much as it will be Reaper drones turning Afghan hills into parking lots. The industrialized nations will have a monopoly on it, and already do probably. It'll be up to them whether or not it continues.
And it probably will.
- #43
- 20 December 2010 - 09:42 PM
- ChewySmokey
- BCI Member
I feel that there will always be war, too many things in this world that make us get all pissed off at eachother 
- #45
- 20 December 2010 - 09:51 PM
<hypothetical>Are you pissed at me? </hypothetical>. If not, lets build on that!
- #46
- 20 December 2010 - 10:00 PM
- ChewySmokey
- BCI Member
Starwatcher, on 20 December 2010 - 10:00 PM, said:
<hypothetical>Are you pissed at me? </hypothetical>. If not, lets build on that!
- #47
- 20 December 2010 - 10:53 PM
Yeah, thats fair. But let's not kill each other over them.
I guess I might be being naive about this whole thing, but I see people do enough good that I think we have the ability to change, to move towards some better life and understanding of each other.
I guess I might be being naive about this whole thing, but I see people do enough good that I think we have the ability to change, to move towards some better life and understanding of each other.
- #48
- 20 December 2010 - 10:54 PM
- Quaddy
- Member
A war between developed nations like China and the US seems kinda impossible right now. I know enough people from China that it would be hard for the government to convince me that they were all evil. Our economies and people are so intertwined that a war between us is inconcievable.
I mean, it would be like the Southern states of the US attacking the North, over a few human rights issues and a grudge about the way the economy is going, despite all the ties of family and friendship crossing the nation.
...
Well, shit.
I mean, it would be like the Southern states of the US attacking the North, over a few human rights issues and a grudge about the way the economy is going, despite all the ties of family and friendship crossing the nation.
...
Well, shit.
- #49
- 21 December 2010 - 12:08 AM
I know right? Some of my best friends are from China. I don't think it would be anything at all like WWII, I mean, we knew that the Nazis were evil.
- #50
- 21 December 2010 - 12:16 AM