Live data from Hacker News

Can men live without war? (1956)

theatlantic.com

201–210 of 237 posts

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#201
post #23

The thing is without force your stuff gets taken. We haven't got a good way around this. Our current peace is heavily based on nuclear weapons and the implied threat of force. Don't like the status quo? Use force to try to change it. Do like the status quo? Use force to try to keep it that way. We don't have a stable equiliubrium where no force exists in the system. Many in this thread effectively say "You can do wha…

> 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?

In Lysistrata they were basically asking the hard questions.

Can men live without war?

Aren't men fighting over women to begin with?

Can women live with war?

Can war live without women?

Can war live without men having anything to fight over?

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#202
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A small percentage of humans can catch some hands and get stuffed into lockers by the rest of us who would prefer not to be led by them.

A small percentage of humans are wired with a strong territorial mind and/or a greedy personality. A large percentage of humans are wired to view those traits as favourable and attractive and view such persons as charismatic "leaders" to follow and identify with. My suspicion is, this is in the genes too, and I feel this is almost the bigger part of the problem.

>We strive for peace today with conviction and intensity, for great wars must cease if we are to pursue further the path of progress.

As soon as you stop striving with all your might, you could be screwed.

There's still too many people who are greedy, hateful, and power-seeking. That kind cannot be allowed to gain power and run amok, that's what war is.

Every decade, as more of those who were alive then have passed, the less force remains of the kind that's needed to prevent running amok at large scale.

The standard today for world leaders now, as we have seen, is much lower than needed. The whole of society has declined in lockstep so it can't be perceived as an outlier. There are now such defective chains of command all over the place where those with false leadership ability are most likely to rise through the ranks. And these are ones who would have never been worthy of consideration after World War II, whether it was the winning or losing side rebuilding afterward. Everybody wanted real prosperity, not that fake leadership thing any more. Now too many people can't tell the difference again.

Everyone who went through World War II knew instinctively they had to keep up even more challenging work (non-military instead) under peacetime every year for the rest of their lives, just to avoid another war. Even though "total world peace" had not 100% been achieved, the effort must strongly be concentrated on avoiding another world-destroying war first and foremost while some of the same efforts will help to top off peace on their own.

>And our striving is by no means hopeless.

Speak for your own generation kind sir, I remember what you're talking about, it's difficult to be so sure any more :(

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#203
post #152
post #116

Interesting 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…

Came here to say the same. We've evolved on a finite planet, so war is in our DNA.

>war is in our DNA.

That's very promising since some of the most undesirable characteristics can be bred out within a few generations. Actually that might have been what happened to some isolated cultures (even if nomadic) where they had nothing to fight over for thousands of years.

While other isolated or marching cultures bred out any non-violent tendencies in the opposite way themselves.

Maybe not so promising after all.

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#204
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Came here to say the same. We've evolved on a finite planet, so war is in our DNA.

>war is in our DNA. That's very promising since some of the most undesirable characteristics can be bred out within a few generations. Actually that might have been what happened to some isolated cultures (even if nomadic) where they had nothing to fight over for thousands of years. While other isolated or marching cultures bred out any non-violent tendencies in the opposite way themselves. Maybe not so promising aft…

See my reply to my comment - I kind of feel a bit more optimistic, as I finally watched the Veritasium video I've tucked away in my Watch Later the past few weeks.

> That's very promising since some of the most undesirable characteristics can be bred out within a few generations.

One can hope :)

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#205
post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, the geological record shows that mass extinctions are possible, happen somewhat regularly, and are sometimes caused by a single species altering the environment on a massive scale. For example when photosynthesizers converted 20% of the atmosphere into extremely toxic oxygen gas.

Eh, a bit overstated. None of them killed EVERYTHING, near as we can tell. Not even the oxygen catastrophe you're mentioning. To do that would likely require liquifying the mantle entirely, or some similar scale event. The last big one was approximately 66 million years ago due to perhaps the Chicxulub impact, and it wiped out most of the dinosaurs - but modern birds are descended from them, and the crocodiles and al…

Species become extinct all the time. Humans don't have to exterminate all life, to exterminate humans.

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#206

Earlier 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.

Yeah… but if it hasn’t happened by now (after 70+ years), that tells you something .

It has happened. Twice. Russia-China in 1969, and Pakistan-India in 1999. Arguably one should count the Cuban missile crisis too.

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#207
post #104
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would they make bows and spears, but not guns? That seems a fairly arbitrary technological line to draw.

To ensure the natural advantage that strong people have over weak people, of course. Nature has ordained that the strong should subjugate the weak, and the equalizing force of firearms is thus an afront to nature, and is not to be tolerated!

physical strength, dexterity, skill, and combat training still make a hell of a difference in a gunfight. A gun only makes a physically weak person strong against someone without a gun.

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A small percentage of humans can catch some hands and get stuffed into lockers by the rest of us who would prefer not to be led by them.

> get stuffed into lockers great way to make bug-controlling supervillains, wouldn't recommend it

I was not expecting a Worm reference in this thread, well done.

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#209
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The weaker version of madman scenario is a head of state believing they can use nukes in a limited scope to achieve its political goals. Imagine this scenario: the war in Ukraine goes for some more time, Russia starts to have economic problems and is desperate to settle it (without having to compromise), force Ukraine to surrender and demand sanctions to be lifted. So he uses a couple of small tactical nukes along th…

Russia that knows that China and India will not accept a nuclear first use in an offensive war. More than that, nuking Ukraine would also the drive everyone else still dealing with Russia far far away, probably even Iran. Also, if Russia uses nukes to get a favourable deal, presumably involving conquering some parts of Ukraine, why would they nuke the land they plan to loot?

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#210
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a nice theory there, would be a shame if something happened to it. I played this older computer civilization-like space game. In it, there was an hyperaggressive race that always went to war with everybody. They always died out first. I think conflict will always exist, but violence? I am not sure. I think it comes down to availability of information. People don't like a*holes. Once world becomes a global vi…

> People don't like a*holes. And yet they manage to get elected to office and hired as CEOs.

Because we prefer to attribute big deeds (both positive and negative) to a single person rather than a collective. CEOs (and other "leaders") are good at spinning their good deeds as their achievements, while attributing their bad deeds to something else. This is because are brains are not large enough to track misbehaviour in large, anonymous groups, so we cannot prevent hierarchy forming as a sort of simplified model.
Post reply on HN