I feel a bit silly now, I really thought you might have meant it seriously and with a straight face. But I guess there are those who
would say it with a straight face, so I'm glad we can have this discussion anyway.
> It would be preferable not to engage in aggressive warfare. But it's also preferable not to be the one who ends up dead from it.
So far, since the end of the cold war, the US is waging war on much weaker enemies, not any who pose an actual threat to its existence. And I think even conquering any and all potential threats will inevitably mean turning onto its own citizens, too, I believe. I mean, even more so than that is already the case.
And China for example will rise either way, a military defense against aggression might be unrealistic; however, there is also culture, and being worth more as an ally than a conquered territory. More importantly, there is democracy; not yet in China, heck, not yet hardly anywhere, but in theory. And people in general don't like war, it's the elites that use them as cannonfodders and bill payers in them who do. Not being hateworthy seems less risky than trying to win all the time and constantly increasing the stakes. But sadly I think the US is very used to being aggressive, and assumes everybody else is, too, that only American power keeps them in check. I don't think this is true.
> Americans are by no means the only militaristic nationalists around
Of course they're not, but we're talking about the US military on an american website. And the US, at least for the time being, is the top dog. The path the US takes is very important to me because of that, I do think it trickles down to everybody else to a degree, or at least makes it harder to achieve some progress and sanity in other countries.
> it's worth pointing out that those two things are not mutually exclusive.
I disagree, though I guess it's hard to know for sure, because how would we measure it? Still, I think when a nation wages war, the citizens get to shoulder all the costs (or debt, in the case of the US), but they don't get a comparable share in the profits. And I don't think that share outweighs the costs to them, either.
> If you're born into a nation, and into the systems which brought it into being, and you derive benefits from it - food, education, language, culture - then I believe you are to a degree a paricipant in or benefactor of the crimes which made those benefits possible. They were done on your behalf whether you like it or not.
Of course. But I also derive a lot of benefit of things people in general are doing. By "not buying into nations" I meant I don't feel pride in "my" country, just like I don't feel pride in what another right-hander, or male, or member of any other group I could be said to "belong to", is doing. War does live off this spectator sports mentality, and I just don't feel it. It has nothing to do with the internet, at least for me, though I hope it can help that process along. Nations are a way to organize things on a certain scale, but no more. They are not holy or special, they are arbitrary.
> I think you can put yourself beyond nationalism if you wish, and doing so is understandable in a post-Internet age. But I don't believe that puts you above it. You are a product of the industries of slavery, barbarism, greed and genocide, as am I, as is every human being. Before nations, people slaughtered one another in the name of their tribe, or their clan, or their family, or gods. We are all of us standing atop a pile of bones simply by virtue of birth... it's just that some piles are bigger than others.
Sure, but I think we have long since reached a point where the drawbacks of constant warfare and greed are bigger than the benefits of co-operation, though I can not really prove it. One thing is true for sure though, co-operation is also as old as history; if parents and children fought each other over food, we wouldn't exist. We're not just products of exploitation and slaughter, not by a long shot. And whatever put us here, now we are here: with an ability to think and make choices.
I actually don't think humans always slaughtered each other whenever they could and derived some benefit from it. That is, scarcity makes us do that, and nowadays I feel this scarcity is also artificially created, even more so going forward. Greed also creates scarcity: if one is greedy enough, they will not ever be satisfied, even ruling the whole universe. That way lies at best despair, at worst disaster - so why not look for a better way to spend the time until the heat death? Yes, I'm an idealist. I believe in striving for something worthwhile more than adapting myself to what I found, and leaving it behind the way I found it.
I like to believe this is true:
[Humans] have been genetically programmed through hunting behavior: cooperation and sharing. Cooperation between members of the same band was a practical necessity for most hunting societies; so was the sharing of food. Since meat is perishable in most climates except that of the Arctic, it could not be preserved. Luck in hunting was not equally divided among all hunters; hence the practical outcome was that those who had luck today would share their food with those who would be lucky tomorrow. Assuming hunting behavior led to genetic changes, the conclusion would be that modern man has an innate impulse for cooperation and sharing, rather than for killing and cruelty.
Erich Fromm, "The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness"