HappySqurriel said:
sapphi_snake said:
HappySqurriel said:
| Farmageddon said:
Yeah, you'd think that. Unless of course you actually looked at the world around you. Then you'd realise no, we, as a whole, are not able to do that, at least not yet and probably not for a long time. Sucks, but it's true.
Again, everyone agrees the world would be better witohut war and famine and all that crap and that if everyone was more rational and genuinelly cared about each other we could start to walk that way. But that's just not how the world is and that's just not how it's gonna be for a long time.
Want to hate something, put your hate in the right place. As you said, it's not the army that starts a war, it's politicians. And they don't do that because they're evil politicians, they do that because they can and it's human nature. You may believe we're so different and above the rest of life. Well, we're not. In a sense we are, sure, and many of us have great capacity for empathy and clear thinking, but not we as a whole. Group thinking is inate to us, as is that us vs them mentality. Just look at a soccer game and think about it. We need a lot of conciouss effort and teaching to try and stop this natural mentality to rise and take control.
So I mantain your anger is misplaced. You hate this part of human nature, but you're still to give us a good reason to hate an army itself.
|
While the world on the whole may be better off without war, historically many individuals and nations have seen massive benefits from being highly aggressive; and it has only been in the last half century (or so) where the world banding together to counter aggression has made this strategy less successful. Only when being the aggressor becomes a "losing" strategy (when the costs involved greatly outweigh the potential gains) for every nation can the world truly achieve peace; and this can only be obtained if everyone has a viable military and is willing to interfere to preserve peace.
|
That selfishness sounds so sad and depressing. What a terrible world.
As for the bolded part, a solution to tha tproblem would be the existence of a single world state.
|
Except a whole new set of problems emerge when you have a very large, very powerful government; which is what the government in a single world state would be.
|
Indeed, a one world government system could only really work in a "Capitalist Utopia".
It's also interesting to note how much war has advanced technology. Things that originally were meant for military use that would of had little to no meaning or reason for invention without the military that later were adapted to wonderous civilian uses.
Like say... the internet.
If there was no USA/USSR rivalry it's very unlikely we'd have the internet today. Just how without WW2 we likely wouldn't have jet engines, or if we did they'd be much more primative.
The world may actually NOT be better off without war. Or at least without the threat of war. It really only makes sense if you think about the fact that technology is man's "new" way to evolve.
Now the world would be more pleasent... but would be as well off as we are now if everyone stopped fighting wars in the 1900's? Probably not actually.
