War


#1

Why does war happen and how can we prevent it?


#2

It happens because people are frustrated. Hunger, fear and/or lack of sexual satisfaction would be my guess. Happy people just don't go and blow themselves up :mrgreen:


#3

It happens for a lot of different reasons: religion, nationalism, injustice, evil people on top, money(power), stealing resources...

We can prevent it by choosing our leaders very carefully. It might be one of the most important choices in our life. Unfortunately most people are stupid and easily manipulated with religion, patriotism or pretty words. Once the general population gets more intelligent there will be less wars.


#4

I TOTALLY agree!
But when is that likely to happen? :unamused:


#5

When the world has more rationals :stuck_out_tongue:

The best way to prevent war is to teach that it is wrong from an early age. Instill the moral value that war is wrong, but self defense is ok in the youngest generation and the generations after that. They will grow up, mostly, believing whole-heartedly that war is wrong and mostly unnecessary. That generation and the generations after them will largely favor peaceful means as opposed to violent means, reducing the amount of war.

The "One Laptop Per Child" program has world peace as its main goal. They give laptops to children in the poorest countries of the world, connecting them via internet to more children all over the world. Through these interactions, the children learn that other children they interact with are basically the same as they are... thus the children become unable to demonize others when propaganda explodes. The laptops have plenty of educational materials as well. I wonder what those materials are exactly.........

Very cool concept. Only to be used for good, of course.


#6

x


#7

Generally speaking, would you agree that the same end can be met through different means?

Now take some situation(s) in which war has improved life on Earth, and think whether the same outcome(s) could have been met by stripping a country of all its resources, if the entire population of a warring country sided with the opposition, or if an insane dictator finally just woke up one morning and was sane. Maybe? Maybe not?

Right and wrong are relative terms that can change over time. When people suffer extreme consequences, to be on the side of right means to be on the side of everyone's best interest; war is not in everyone's best interest, ever. Violence is never in everyone's best interest either, alternative methods can be however. I think that more often than not, a desired outcome can be achieved through non-violent means (e.g. manipulation of economics, politics, and emotions). For me, ethical boundaries are outlined by a very vague line... but violence is rarely the best solution.

In the past, without the resources we have today (almost entirely new technologies), war has been effective at producing desirable outcomes. Improvements in technology are what will allow this world to end war peacefully... eventually, more and more as technology improves (yes, even/especially military technology).

Invest in American technology companies, this is how you will prevent war.


#8

x


#9

I understand where you are coming from. I disagree that a lack of violent action on our part will result in our enemies taking out a major city. However, I would agree that a lack of action on our part would allow for this. When I speak of alternative methods, I am not talking about letter writing... let your imagination run wild. I think that we are closing in on a time where war will be impossible anyway due to communication and international economic dependency. Whether you want the US to stay on top to kick the asses of incorrect idealists (yes, most idealists are incorrect in their reasoning for what (they think) is best for everyone) or to create world peace, technology is where the answer will come from. We have more knowledge and better technology than any past civilization and are not repeating the steps of every or any past civilization. We are on the verge of dictating how long a human can live and can already control what emotions a person will feel at any moment of our choosing, I can assure you that our society will not implode. We must protect ourselves the best way we can, but need to seek non-violent means more than we are now. Protect yourself, but don't be aggressive if you don't have to be. Improve creative problem solving and decrease the need for war.

For either the knockout punch or the impenetrable wall, technology is the answer.


#10

IMO, war is often an excessive and simple attempt at solving problems with brute force. Good only for dealing with stupid opponents at best.

In places like Iraq, its my opinion that a much stronger propaganda push would have been more valuable than all the fighting. It is important to change the view of the rest of the world about the US.

Personally, I worry that we’re going to end up pissing off some genuinely intelligent people and then the game is going to just end up ugly. Like if I think about what I could do if I wanted to hurt a country and had a decent amount of resources and plenty of time… a lot. The kind of security there is in the US wouldn’t stop anyone with half a brain.

I have a suspicion though that the attack on Afghanistan and all the people killed there (like 100:1 for the deaths in the US for 9/11), might have served as a deterrent against future attacks… that or the terrorists just didn’t care to continue, since its not like US security would’ve stopped them from doing much of anything.

Personally, I thought 9/11 in general was just plain strange coming from a guerrilla fighter group used to a completely different style of fighting, especially with the complete lack of follow up. The only follow up, if it can be called that, was the super strange anthrax letter threat. Almost like someone was trying to keep the issue in the air by bringing out a potentially serious danger, while not actually causing panic… with it just being so easy to avoid and with such little actual activity in that regard. If you actually want to cause trouble, you’re not exactly limited in your options, and you don’t need to go for buzz words like ‘anthrax’.

But anyway, I’d say that war could be a legitimate solution to some problems, but the solution you develop should suit the problem and not just be the simplest, most extreme approach you can think of.


#11

I love this forum. I almost completely agree with you, but haven’t really had this discussion with anyone yet.

Couple points: I think the key to Iraq was not propaganda, but information spread, and trade. Trade is the single most effective way to spread accurate information, and make friends. i.e. if your enemy hurts you, it hurts itself. That doesn’t eliminate the threat of war, but sure reduces it significantly. This is why I think sanctions are stupid - they merely strengthen the govt of any country that sanctions are imposed upon, and create an automatic enemy for its people (in the form of the nation imposing the sanctions). I agree with Washington’s Farewell Address - “friendship to all nations, entangling alliances with none”.

The anthrax thing is one of the weirdest forgotten mysteries of this decade. I’m amazed that such a major campaign remains unsolved with no leads (news out just this week about how none of the alleged suspect’s colleagues believe he had the resources to do it).


#12

:laughing: There is nothing new under the sun.

I think you are missing the underlying problem these things war,poverty,suffering,hate e.t.c will continue to go on. We can blame it on religion, politics e.t.c But the real underlying problem here is Human nature. As long we have this vile nature these things will continue to exist. All evil comes from within not from the outside- hate, war, lust, covetousness, adultery, lying all these thing come from our human nature. That is the problem in this world and these problems need a divine answer. The only way to solve it is to give mankind a new nature.

You can say we can create legislations, government bodies, unite the world, take away religion but as long you can’t solve the human nature problem these problems will persist. :exclamation: That is why mankind need God in the equation :slight_smile:


#13

Or people just need to be raised better.

It honestly hurts me to see talented people raised by idiots and having most of their potential ruined.

I don’t blame religions for wars. I agree that its human nature - but humans can learn. Its just that we haven’t really become very civilized overall yet. I think there is progress though, and there are more intelligent and capable people starting to turn up. Plus we can find each other more easily and coordinate better in this age :stuck_out_tongue:


#14

War is ultimately pointless besides war itself.


#15

Again, agreed almost completely. :slight_smile:

(Govt) schools/ universities seem to evolve into more explicit centers of brainwashing and propaganda - kids seem to know more about global warming than math, business or how the world works - i.e. reality. I would actually argue that we may be becoming ‘decivilized’ (borrowing a concept from Hans-Hermann Hoppe). Luckily I do think the trend may be peaking and we’re close to a reverse driven by better information/ knowledge flow through technology, as well as the positive incentives pushed by increased visibility through social networking etc. (i.e. your reputation becomes more widespread easier over time).

I know what you mean about potential - I really hate seeing people not live up to their potential, its the most disappointing thing in the world. But that is changing too, so at my core, I’m an optimist. :smiley:


#16

War is an all encompassing word used to describe armed conflict by a nation against another nation or group.

The last time we had a major, politically significant war was the Iraq war. It’s over. Despite the basis for that war and whether you agree with it Iraq is more stable and from what we can gather afterwards it all came down to police actions. The nation crumbled from within when the US commenced it’s invasion. It didn’t take much combat at all to cause that.

The distinction that I’m going for here is that war goes all the way up to big huge global conflicts all the way down to minor police actions like Afghanistan. That’s what Afghanistan is, don’t try and hype it up any other way. No one other than the military directly feels the effects of Afghanistan in their day to day lives in the First World.

With that said, there will always be a conflict of that nature for the world to take on. There is definitely a better way, but in order to coordinate that would take a massive ideological revolution that has never been tested or implemented anywhere. So, nations such as the United States continue to stick with what works rather than reinventing the wheel like we’d all prefer to do.

There was a good video on TED, watch it.

ted.com/talks/thomas_barnett … peace.html