21–30 of 31 posts
It's exactly because there is so much violence that we need to reward actors who work to reduce it.
Seriously. If anything that is the stated purpose of the creator of it after contributing to so much violence with dynamite. For Harvard this is intensely stupid.
It's exactly because there is so much violence that we need to reward actors who work to reduce it.
Seriously. If anything that is the stated purpose of the creator of it after contributing to so much violence with dynamite. For Harvard this is intensely stupid.
There's two reasons why this argument doesn't make any sense. 1. "Too aggressive" relative to what? There's probably never going to be an absolutely perfect, peaceful human being, simply due to our evolutionary roots. To suggest that this means we should abandon the peace prize is absurd. There's never going to be some perfect embodiment of peace, but that's not what the peace prize is for. 2. http://www.icanw.org/pl…
> "Too aggressive" relative to what? Other humans (Homo not Sapiens). Sadly, we'll probably never know for sure, because it looks like we were responsible for wiping most of them out 10,000s years ago. > Mother Teresa Usually isn't a good example to bring up ... Mother Teresa has had her fair share of controversy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/…
It's exactly because there is so much violence that we need to reward actors who work to reduce it.
Seriously. If anything that is the stated purpose of the creator of it after contributing to so much violence with dynamite. For Harvard this is intensely stupid.
It's Bofors, and it's place among the Victorian era heavy arms cartel with Krupp and Armstrong-Vickers that he was ashamed of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only between nations where one or both didn't have nuclear deterrence.
Or internally. Or at the behest of nuclear powers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflict... And I guess those are just 'direct' deaths so it doesn't count all the deaths of refugees or plague or starvation that arose from the conflicts.
And is there and reason to believe the killed anecdotally to killed in action ratio is different than it was pre-1945?
Starving refugees were a thing before nuclear weapons too.
Most of the crudeness of humanity can be attributed to this fascination with terrible things and people, I think. The Nobel Peace Prize can best be seen as a way of turning phenomenon around- of putting the spotlight on good people for once. There is no shortage of excellent candidates. That less-than-sterling examples sometimes win the Peace prize is perhaps a sign that the prize itself is being misused- awarding the prize to Obama was widely seen as an inducement towards, rather than recognition of, good- not it's intended purpose! The rest, the good-but-not-earth-shaking examples, are so just because the work of peace just intrinsically isn't earth-shaking; it's slow, subtle, and ubiquitous.
...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Too aggressive" relative to what? Other humans (Homo not Sapiens). Sadly, we'll probably never know for sure, because it looks like we were responsible for wiping most of them out 10,000s years ago. > Mother Teresa Usually isn't a good example to bring up ... Mother Teresa has had her fair share of controversy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/…
Mother Teresa may have been a poor example, I admittedly don't know that much about her. Thank you for the insight. Though I don't think my post has no merit and warrants downvotes
You know it's no wonder no aliens have come to visit us, we're such a huge bummer we get caught in a knot for even congratulating ourselves for putting forth a good faith effort to improve.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seriously. If anything that is the stated purpose of the creator of it after contributing to so much violence with dynamite. For Harvard this is intensely stupid.
People always bring up dynamite with Nobel, like dynamite was a significant war-fighting weapon, rather than something that spurred tbe construction of the infrasructure that made modern civilization possible. It's Bofors, and it's place among the Victorian era heavy arms cartel with Krupp and Armstrong-Vickers that he was ashamed of.
I think he’d know.