Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, some sort of large-scale conflict to finally convince them that war is bad.
To end all wars, one might say.
Sounds almost like WW1, one might say ;)
Can men live without war? (1956)
111–120 of 237 posts
Re: Can men live without war? (1956)
#112Re: Can men live without war? (1956)
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and land get taken. It's always land. This is because land is scarce. You can keep things that aren't scarce without force. > Is there any convincing argument for getting out of this equilibrium? The total destruction of artificial scarcity?
How exactly would we eliminate the scarcity of land?
Good enough VR that people can be stored in matrix-like pods
Re: Can men live without war? (1956)
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
> War between nuclear powers doesn't happen any more It didn't happen yet, but there are no is reasons for nuclear war to be avoided indefinitely.
All it takes is one madman to get near the button and gain enough power that his button-press is honored. It almost seems inevitable given a long enough time frame.
Yeah… but if it hasn’t happened by now (after 70+ years), that tells you something.
Re: Can men live without war? (1956)
#115No we cannot. A small percentage of humans are wired with a strong territorial mind and/or a greedy personality. It's in the gene. Some of them eventually become leaders.
Luckily, such innate drive and desire to dominate can be funnelled into something more productive and less detrimental to others.
Instead of becoming a president and starting wars of aggression, why not try sports? How about becoming an academic, an expert in some esoteric field, and spend your days acquiring intellectual territory and terrorising your intellectual opponents?
Or use your greed to start a business that somehow ends up benefiting us all even whilst making you richer than all of us.
Re: Can men live without war? (1956)
#116Interesting thoughts but I feel it is the wrong level of analysis. Maybe we will reach some sci-fi utopia but personally I see war as a kind of law of nature.
Think about a petri dish and how bacteria grow on it until they saturate the entire surface area and then the resources run out, unless half of the bacteria destroy the other half, and then they can survive longer. War is the result of humans fighting over the metaphorical petri dish of land, resources, and also power. From this high level perspective, humans go through periods of growth, tension, war, and then the winner gets to continue surviving, only to repeat the cycle eventually.
Unless we discover infinite energy and resources somehow, we are going to be forced to clash in this way, and the ultimate way to resolve these conflicts is war. That said, we can have long periods without it because we discover new technologies that alleviate these tensions for some time, but I think a great war will be inevitable, the question is how long will our current peace streak last?
Re: Can men live without war? (1956)
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
All it takes is one madman to get near the button and gain enough power that his button-press is honored. It almost seems inevitable given a long enough time frame.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
I’d just prefer the survival rate not drop to zero for everyone at the same time.
Re: Can men live without war? (1956)
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
> War between nuclear powers doesn't happen any more It didn't happen yet, but there are no is reasons for nuclear war to be avoided indefinitely.
All it takes is one madman to get near the button and gain enough power that his button-press is honored. It almost seems inevitable given a long enough time frame.
Many if not all the close calls in the past were misunderstandings or tensions spiraling out of control. The madman with nukes is a trope.
This is also why online commenters thinking that the Ukraine war will not go nuclear are misguided.
Re: Can men live without war? (1956)
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and land get taken. It's always land. This is because land is scarce. You can keep things that aren't scarce without force. > Is there any convincing argument for getting out of this equilibrium? The total destruction of artificial scarcity?
How exactly would we eliminate the scarcity of land?
Artificial scarcity, the proposal is for the elimination of the ability of owning classes to restrict supply of a given good through various means.
That said, >100 years in the future it could be possible to make more land with rotating habitats in space, which would functionally eliminate land scarcity.
Re: Can men live without war? (1956)
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ukraine is uncomfortably close. Nuclear armed combatant on one side, and proxy on the other.
Russia is a North Korean 'proxy'. With South Korea considering lethal aid, Ukraine may soon be a 'proxy' of South Korea. In the end, Russia made their own decision to invade, and the Ukrainians' own decision to resist.
Ukraine may not have started as a proxy, but it became one as its military stocks were exhausted. Both EU and US politicians claim on record that Ukraine would fold within days or weeks if it didn’t get support.
At this point US+EU are paying for the pensions, military and keeping Ukraine’s economy afloat. Our military aid is keeping Ukraine in the fight.
This doesn’t mean the Ukrainians don’t have agency or don’t make their own decisions, but the US and to some extent EU have a huge amount of influence.
By the way, South Korea has already sent hundreds of thousands of artillery shells to Ukraine at the request of the US. They’re now considering sending weapons and this might trigger Russia to send missiles or nuclear tech to North Korea.
Russia is as far as the world knows is just buying weapons from North Korea.