My minimal beliefs

[Adrian II]

Here's the deal.

When I was young, I used to have high-falutin ideals like peace and justice for mankind. Why? Because!

Then I hit my nose a couple times. I lost friends for the wrong reasons, came under a streetcar called marriage, had to learn how to fire people. Low & behold, I started thinking.

And come to think of it: if and when those former ideals of mine would ever be realised, life on earth would be a total bore. I wouldn't want to live in peace and harmony. Yuk!

Besides, the things I typically enjoy in this life are the fruit of war, strife and greed: from fast cars to movies and from good dentistry to chess -- with the possible exception of the printing press which seems to have been the result of selfless pioneering. Then again, old Gutenberg was sued over it within the next three years.

So, what's left? I am still moved by ideas and desires. My life hasn't suddenly become aimless. That's not the problem. It took me some time to discover, however, what it is that still makes me tick.

What makes me tick is aesthetic and intellectual gratification. Art, good books, theatre, film, anything that explores the human condition in an honest way. And that isn't stupid. Conflict or injustice don't bother me anymore, stupidity does.

Does that make me smart? I don't think so. Just wiser.

It makes me a bad journalist as well. To be honest, the outbreak of a new war in some part of the world doesn't mean crap to me these days. All wars are alike. A new book by Philip Roth or Michel Houellebecq, now that's news!

I see life as an intellectual adventure, more than a physical adventure. The true quest is inside your head (and heart). I guess such insights come with age. I am ready for the Zimmer frame. Yes Doctor, I have taken my yellow pills this morning, thank you.

[Big_John]

ok.

[Vladimir]

Thank you! Whenever some brainless minion talks about wanting world peace all I can think is: "How boring."

But no, srsly. Peace is the dream of the wise, war is the way of man. Dream big but you have to wake up eventually.

Conflict and competition are good things, however war is the ultimate conflict and competition.

[Samurai Waki]

What would the Universe Be like without it's Emperor Palpatines and Darth Vaders? Cause if the Story was based on C3PO and Luke having a jolly good time on the beach, I don't think it would've been hallmarked as it has.

[Adrian II]

What would the Universe Be like without it's Emperor Palpatines and Darth Vaders? Cause if the Story was based on C3PO and Luke having a jolly good time on the beach, I don't think it would've been hallmarked as it has.This is why I love Wesley - Simon says: "Bleed" - Snipes in Demolition Man. That movie is so true. "I don't need a history lesson! C'mon, where are the god damn guns?"

[woad&fangs]

It's 300 syndrome.

We know we can't actually completely stop war and suffering but we want to be the ones who helped to slow down the never ending tide of war so that others in the future might have the chance to build upon our minor victories.

I hope that made sense:sweatdrop:

[Faust|]

Any values that don't proceed ultimately from strength (which has, at least, a significant physical component) are worthless and I don't trust them.

Also, to get a better view of things such as injustice and strife, you have to really be exposed to such things (in the most seemingly extreme way). Not really saying that I have, but I at least try hard to imagine. It doesn't seem like strife in war is very glorious now, either! I think you're talking about imaginary or pretend strife!

The only way I would be so much for real strife (I'm not talking about personal quarrels or competition) would be if glory or honor could possibly accompany it. It's kind of funny when I see people express that they want more strife... because they're just little fish, ultimately.

Competition, on the other hand, I'm all for. Also, on a side note, I wouldn't mind being taken back several hundred years or so, but alas, hehe...

[Tachikaze]

And I think about all those people who suffer so life will not be boring for you.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

But no, srsly. Peace is the dream of the wise, war is the way of man. Dream big but you have to wake up eventually.

:yes:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Check this out, Adrian

David Mamet: Why I Am No Longer a ’Brain-Dead Liberal’
An election-season essay
by David Mamet
March 11th, 2008 12:00 AM
link (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0811%2Cwhy-i-am-no-longer-a-brain-dead-liberal%2C374064%2C1.html/1)

John Maynard Keynes was twitted with changing his mind. He replied, "When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?"

My favorite example of a change of mind was Norman Mailer at The Village Voice.

Norman took on the role of drama critic, weighing in on the New York premiere of Waiting for Godot.

Twentieth century’s greatest play. Without bothering to go, Mailer called it a piece of garbage.

When he did get around to seeing it, he realized his mistake. He was no longer a Voice columnist, however, so he bought a page in the paper and wrote a retraction, praising the play as the masterpiece it is.

Every playwright’s dream.

I once won one of Mary Ann Madden’s "Competitions" in New York magazine. The task was to name or create a "10" of anything, and mine was the World’s Perfect Theatrical Review. It went like this: "I never understood the theater until last night. Please forgive everything I’ve ever written. When you read this I’ll be dead." That, of course, is the only review anybody in the theater ever wants to get.

My prize, in a stunning example of irony, was a year’s subscription to New York, which rag (apart from Mary Ann’s "Competition") I considered an open running sore on the body of world literacy—this due to the presence in its pages of John Simon, whose stunning amalgam of superciliousness and savagery, over the years, was appreciated by that readership searching for an endorsement of proactive mediocrity.

But I digress.

I wrote a play about politics (November, Barrymore Theater, Broadway, some seats still available). And as part of the "writing process," as I believe it’s called, I started thinking about politics. This comment is not actually as jejune as it might seem. Porgy and Bess is a buncha good songs but has nothing to do with race relations, which is the flag of convenience under which it sailed.

But my play, it turned out, was actually about politics, which is to say, about the polemic between persons of two opposing views. The argument in my play is between a president who is self-interested, corrupt, suborned, and realistic, and his leftish, lesbian, utopian-socialist speechwriter.

The play, while being a laugh a minute, is, when it’s at home, a disputation between reason and faith, or perhaps between the conservative (or tragic) view and the liberal (or perfectionist) view. The conservative president in the piece holds that people are each out to make a living, and the best way for government to facilitate that is to stay out of the way, as the inevitable abuses and failures of this system (free-market economics) are less than those of government intervention.

I took the liberal view for many decades, but I believe I have changed my mind.

As a child of the ’60s, I accepted as an article of faith that government is corrupt, that business is exploitative, and that people are generally good at heart.

These cherished precepts had, over the years, become ingrained as increasingly impracticable prejudices. Why do I say impracticable? Because although I still held these beliefs, I no longer applied them in my life. How do I know? My wife informed me. We were riding along and listening to NPR. I felt my facial muscles tightening, and the words beginning to form in my mind: Shut the fuck up. "?" she prompted. And her terse, elegant summation, as always, awakened me to a deeper truth: I had been listening to NPR and reading various organs of national opinion for years, wonder and rage contending for pride of place. Further: I found I had been—rather charmingly, I thought—referring to myself for years as "a brain-dead liberal," and to NPR as "National Palestinian Radio."

This is, to me, the synthesis of this worldview with which I now found myself disenchanted: that everything is always wrong.

But in my life, a brief review revealed, everything was not always wrong, and neither was nor is always wrong in the community in which I live, or in my country. Further, it was not always wrong in previous communities in which I lived, and among the various and mobile classes of which I was at various times a part.

And, I wondered, how could I have spent decades thinking that I thought everything was always wrong at the same time that I thought I thought that people were basically good at heart? Which was it? I began to question what I actually thought and found that I do not think that people are basically good at heart; indeed, that view of human nature has both prompted and informed my writing for the last 40 years. I think that people, in circumstances of stress, can behave like swine, and that this, indeed, is not only a fit subject, but the only subject, of drama.

I’d observed that lust, greed, envy, sloth, and their pals are giving the world a good run for its money, but that nonetheless, people in general seem to get from day to day; and that we in the United States get from day to day under rather wonderful and privileged circumstances—that we are not and never have been the villains that some of the world and some of our citizens make us out to be, but that we are a confection of normal (greedy, lustful, duplicitous, corrupt, inspired—in short, human) individuals living under a spectacularly effective compact called the Constitution, and lucky to get it.

For the Constitution, rather than suggesting that all behave in a godlike manner, recognizes that, to the contrary, people are swine and will take any opportunity to subvert any agreement in order to pursue what they consider to be their proper interests.

To that end, the Constitution separates the power of the state into those three branches which are for most of us (I include myself) the only thing we remember from 12 years of schooling.

The Constitution, written by men with some experience of actual government, assumes that the chief executive will work to be king, the Parliament will scheme to sell off the silverware, and the judiciary will consider itself Olympian and do everything it can to much improve (destroy) the work of the other two branches. So the Constitution pits them against each other, in the attempt not to achieve stasis, but rather to allow for the constant corrections necessary to prevent one branch from getting too much power for too long.

Rather brilliant. For, in the abstract, we may envision an Olympian perfection of perfect beings in Washington doing the business of their employers, the people, but any of us who has ever been at a zoning meeting with our property at stake is aware of the urge to cut through all the pernicious bullshit and go straight to firearms.

I found not only that I didn’t trust the current government (that, to me, was no surprise), but that an impartial review revealed that the faults of this president—whom I, a good liberal, considered a monster—were little different from those of a president whom I revered.

Bush got us into Iraq, JFK into Vietnam. Bush stole the election in Florida; Kennedy stole his in Chicago. Bush outed a CIA agent; Kennedy left hundreds of them to die in the surf at the Bay of Pigs. Bush lied about his military service; Kennedy accepted a Pulitzer Prize for a book written by Ted Sorenson. Bush was in bed with the Saudis, Kennedy with the Mafia. Oh.

And I began to question my hatred for "the Corporations"—the hatred of which, I found, was but the flip side of my hunger for those goods and services they provide and without which we could not live.

And I began to question my distrust of the "Bad, Bad Military" of my youth, which, I saw, was then and is now made up of those men and women who actually risk their lives to protect the rest of us from a very hostile world. Is the military always right? No. Neither is government, nor are the corporations—they are just different signposts for the particular amalgamation of our country into separate working groups, if you will. Are these groups infallible, free from the possibility of mismanagement, corruption, or crime? No, and neither are you or I. So, taking the tragic view, the question was not "Is everything perfect?" but "How could it be better, at what cost, and according to whose definition?" Put into which form, things appeared to me to be unfolding pretty well.

Do I speak as a member of the "privileged class"? If you will—but classes in the United States are mobile, not static, which is the Marxist view. That is: Immigrants came and continue to come here penniless and can (and do) become rich; the nerd makes a trillion dollars; the single mother, penniless and ignorant of English, sends her two sons to college (my grandmother). On the other hand, the rich and the children of the rich can go belly-up; the hegemony of the railroads is appropriated by the airlines, that of the networks by the Internet; and the individual may and probably will change status more than once within his lifetime.

What about the role of government? Well, in the abstract, coming from my time and background, I thought it was a rather good thing, but tallying up the ledger in those things which affect me and in those things I observe, I am hard-pressed to see an instance where the intervention of the government led to much beyond sorrow.

But if the government is not to intervene, how will we, mere human beings, work it all out?

I wondered and read, and it occurred to me that I knew the answer, and here it is: We just seem to. How do I know? From experience. I referred to my own—take away the director from the staged play and what do you get? Usually a diminution of strife, a shorter rehearsal period, and a better production.

The director, generally, does not cause strife, but his or her presence impels the actors to direct (and manufacture) claims designed to appeal to Authority—that is, to set aside the original goal (staging a play for the audience) and indulge in politics, the purpose of which may be to gain status and influence outside the ostensible goal of the endeavor.

Strand unacquainted bus travelers in the middle of the night, and what do you get? A lot of bad drama, and a shake-and-bake Mayflower Compact. Each, instantly, adds what he or she can to the solution. Why? Each wants, and in fact needs, to contribute—to throw into the pot what gifts each has in order to achieve the overall goal, as well as status in the new-formed community. And so they work it out.

See also that most magnificent of schools, the jury system, where, again, each brings nothing into the room save his or her own prejudices, and, through the course of deliberation, comes not to a perfect solution, but a solution acceptable to the community—a solution the community can live with.

Prior to the midterm elections, my rabbi was taking a lot of flack. The congregation is exclusively liberal, he is a self-described independent (read "conservative"), and he was driving the flock wild. Why? Because a) he never discussed politics; and b) he taught that the quality of political discourse must be addressed first—that Jewish law teaches that it is incumbent upon each person to hear the other fellow out.

And so I, like many of the liberal congregation, began, teeth grinding, to attempt to do so. And in doing so, I recognized that I held those two views of America (politics, government, corporations, the military). One was of a state where everything was magically wrong and must be immediately corrected at any cost; and the other—the world in which I actually functioned day to day—was made up of people, most of whom were reasonably trying to maximize their comfort by getting along with each other (in the workplace, the marketplace, the jury room, on the freeway, even at the school-board meeting).

And I realized that the time had come for me to avow my participation in that America in which I chose to live, and that that country was not a schoolroom teaching values, but a marketplace.

"Aha," you will say, and you are right. I began reading not only the economics of Thomas Sowell (our greatest contemporary philosopher) but Milton Friedman, Paul Johnson, and Shelby Steele, and a host of conservative writers, and found that I agreed with them: a free-market understanding of the world meshes more perfectly with my experience than that idealistic vision I called liberalism.

At the same time, I was writing my play about a president, corrupt, venal, cunning, and vengeful (as I assume all of them are), and two turkeys. And I gave this fictional president a speechwriter who, in his view, is a "brain-dead liberal," much like my earlier self; and in the course of the play, they have to work it out. And they eventually do come to a human understanding of the political process. As I believe I am trying to do, and in which I believe I may be succeeding, and I will try to summarize it in the words of William Allen White.

White was for 40 years the editor of the Emporia Gazette in rural Kansas, and a prominent and powerful political commentator. He was a great friend of Theodore Roosevelt and wrote the best book I’ve ever read about the presidency. It’s called Masks in a Pageant, and it profiles presidents from McKinley to Wilson, and I recommend it unreservedly.

White was a pretty clear-headed man, and he’d seen human nature as few can. (As Twain wrote, you want to understand men, run a country paper.) White knew that people need both to get ahead and to get along, and that they’re always working at one or the other, and that government should most probably stay out of the way and let them get on with it. But, he added, there is such a thing as liberalism, and it may be reduced to these saddest of words: " . . . and yet . . . "

The right is mooing about faith, the left is mooing about change, and many are incensed about the fools on the other side—but, at the end of the day, they are the same folks we meet at the water cooler. Happy election season.

[Kaidonni]

And I think about all those people who suffer so life will not be boring for you.

We all think about those people. War might be a reality, but we can make a damn sight better job of trying to resolve problems. Appeasement might not work all the time, but I think we can do a little better than blowing a massive chunk out of the world...

[Faust|]

Thank you! Whenever some brainless minion talks about wanting world peace all I can think is: "How boring."

But no, srsly. Peace is the dream of the wise, war is the way of man. Dream big but you have to wake up eventually.

Conflict and competition are good things, however war is the ultimate conflict and competition.

If you want conflict with the risk of death and or mutilation, you can get it! But instead it appears you're just sitting behind a keyboard...

You can get conflict, with the exception that you can't get a war that is waged for your* (edit: or your countrymen's) benefit. So, that particular violence will also come with you being completely and utterly manipulated. Again, you're talking about video games or movies, I think.

[Adrian II]

And I think about all those people who suffer so life will not be boring for you.They will be relieved to know that Tachikaze is thinking about them!

[Viking]

Peace is the dream of the wise, war is the way of man. Dream big but you have to wake up eventually.

What bollocks. War is just the silliest way men like to compete; glorified in these "modern" days when few know what war actually is.

How many backroomers have experienced war and can honestly say that they're longing for it?

Yes competetition drives man; a good competition is typically one where you do not risk your life and can compete another day too.



If you want conflict with the risk of death and or mutilation, you can get it! But instead it appears you're just sitting behind a keyboard...

You can get conflict, with the exception that you can't get a war that is waged for your benefit. So, that particular violence will also come with you being completely and utterly manipulated. Again, you're talking about video games or movies, I think.

He is probably home on R&R and can't wait to get back to Iraq.


As for the glorious thing that war is; a certain sniper scene in Full Metal Jacket springs to mind. :2thumbsup:

[Kaidonni]

You want conflict? Adrian, join the unfortunate soldiers of WWI who found themselves stuck in muddy, squalid trenches for years at a time, with little respite from the carnage going on all around. You have trench foot, it absolutely stinks, and it hurts a helluvalot. You also saw your best friend, and dozens of your comrades, all mowed down by enemy machine gun fire the other day for just a measily few yards of barbed wire and cratered, muddy no-man's land. Tens of thousands dying just like that for the same amount of land. And this was someone's farmland, someone's home. That horse you saw get shot was a kid's beloved animal at a farm back home, and he's always going to wonder what happened to the horse.

I'd like to say it is exaggerated, but I wouldn't have wanted to be involved in that.

What? Afghanistan and Iraq aren't quite that bad? Well, when your friend comes home in a coffin, killed because he didn't have the necessary gear or friendly fire or a roadside bomb...you gonna celebrate his death, and conflict? Or will you pause for your friend, and wonder what might have been?

I oppose war. I will have no part in it outside of computer games where no one gets hurt. I will not die for someone's right to screw the world up again - and most soldiers, throughout time, have done just that, died for someone to screw up the world again. They valiantly struggle for freedom, and then someone has to go screw everything up again. That is not what soldiers should be dying for. I will not pick up a gun unless it's in my own street, as a last resort. I will not induldge any power-hungry madman's lust for conflict - neither our politicians or our enemies. If more people saw their leaders for who they are, and refused to take up arms against their fellow man...

No, I don't like conflict, and I'm damn well never dying for Humanity. I'd only be letting someone live who could potentially start another war for whatever reason. Or wipe out an entire species. Or whatever...

You want conflict? You can have it. :yes:

But I want no part in that... :smash:

[Adrian II]

For the Constitution, rather than suggesting that all behave in a godlike manner, recognizes that, to the contrary, people are swine and will take any opportunity to subvert any agreement in order to pursue what they consider to be their proper interests.I don't agree that people are swine. Most conflicts (of interest or arms) result from opposing views, fears and misunderstandings, even miscommunication. They are seldom the result of outright evil on both sides (the Third Reich being a prime example where evil was thwarted by morally and militarily superior forces).

The real dilemma is that people can be (re)united and reconciled only in the face of a common enemy. As soon as one war is over, they seem to want to look forward to the next one, if only as a pretext.

[Kaidonni]

I don't agree that people are swine.

You don't understand reality very well. People...are idiots. We're all idiots. I'm one. Not 100%, but still enough of an idiot to be called one. We're Humans, and it's in our nature to be idiots. It's also in our nature to think outside of the box, and people need to really start doing that more.

To say there will always be conflict is wasting the potential of the Human mind. Maybe I can evolve Chimpanzees, Orangutans, and the like, faster...much faster...we need a new mind to exploit the potential of if Humans are gonna sit there and waste away.

Plus, I think it'd be a really novel idea if we put all the world's leaders into a single room, with a fruit basket on a table in the middle, locked the door, and didn't unlock it until they'd settled their differences. There would be less conflict then. If I ever entered politics, and became PM, I'd start with the leaders of the USA and Russia, because if they want to act like children to one another, they can do it in the same enclosed space.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Plus, I think it'd be a really novel idea if we put all the world's leaders into a single room, with a fruit basket on a table in the middle, locked the door, and didn't unlock it until they'd settled their differences. There would be less conflict then.

I personally subscribe to the school of thought that says they'd all starve to death, and we'd just get new ones.

The point is that humans disagree. Everything is a disagreement, and the entire purpose of proper democracy is to reach a compromise. Unfortunately, compromises cannot always be reached to the benefit of the nation, which means conflict is eventually inevitable, in my opinion

Also, conflict, in my opinion, is fought on a cost-reward basis. If the nation predicts it will gain more than it will lose, it will go to war, and vice versa. The only true system for world peace is a system like MAD - if you do anything, you lose everything. Unfortunately, all it takes is one idiot - which, as you agree, is what a lot of humans are.

[Adrian II]

Plus, I think it'd be a really novel idea if we put all the world's leaders into a single room, with a fruit basket on a table in the middle [..]You call that innovative thinking? :coffeenews:

Seriously, if you think these leaders have differences merely because they are childish, you should think again. For instance about how they got into their positions in the first place.

And you can 'evolve' chimpanzees in your own woodshed as much as you like, but please spare us the speculation until you come up with results. Too many people have died because of hair-brained idealistic schemes.

[Kaidonni]

Seriously, if you think these leaders have differences merely because they are childish, you should think again. For instance about how they got into their positions in the first place.

Oh, how they got their positions in the first place? Well, let's see...no one in the electorate had a say on Gordon Brown becoming PM, or even becoming the leader of Labour. He was far from the best Chancellor, taxing everyone and raiding pension funds. And he denies the people's say on the future of our country. He got into power because of idiots who were duped by him and the morons already in power who have duped idiots. Like I said, people are idiots - that's how many leaders get into power. Cameron on tax breaks? Yeah, right, when hell freezes over (and I'm an atheist :P). Plus I recall that less than 40% of voters voted Labour, too, so our leaders get into power in a stupid way. I recall you can win a presidential election in the USA just by having more states than the other candidate - shouldn't that read more voters, not states? See how people get into power now?

Oh, and yeah...those people in that room with the fruit basket probably would starve. Oh well...if you don't succeed at first, try, try, and try again.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

They are childish. They're spoilt brats. I have no respect for our world leaders because they love to screw things up. They got into their positions because of idiots for the most part. Those with power have rarely been that good. Only a select few have managed not to behave too badly. But that's just the stuff we know about...

Think about how difficult it is to be a leader. A leader has to please everyone - they have to be strong, and compromise. They have to be brave, but know when to surrender. They have to be so many things to so many people, and those that the majority of people view as good are not necessarily so, and vice versa.

The "I'd like to see you try, and do a good job of it" argument seems appropriate.

I'd agree with you that the whole EU issue was horribly mishandled, and they knew this. I despise that strategy, as you can see below.

[Geoffrey S]

(edit: at Kaidonni)
Oh, come off it. Somebody has to run things, and I'd rather have an idiot than nobody at all. Do things really get better if more people have a say in matters?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What would the Universe Be like without it's Emperor Palpatines and Darth Vaders? Cause if the Story was based on C3PO and Luke having a jolly good time on the beach, I don't think it would've been hallmarked as it has.

Where would WWII be without Hitler and Stalin? :dizzy2:


Also, conflict, in my opinion, is fought on a cost-reward basis. If the nation predicts it will gain more than it will lose, it will go to war, and vice versa. The only true system for world peace is a system like MAD - if you do anything, you lose everything. Unfortunately, all it takes is one idiot - which, as you agree, is what a lot of humans are.

We end up with less wars as people place more value on human life.



Besides, the things I typically enjoy in this life are the fruit of war, strife and greed: from fast cars to movies and from good dentistry to chess -- with the possible exception of the printing press which seems to have been the result of selfless pioneering. Then again, old Gutenberg was sued over it within the next three years.

I think we had booze before war :tongue3:

I think your missing the middle ground completely. If you're not an idealist you don't have to be a cynic.

[Adrian II]

They are childish. They're spoilt brats. I have no respect for our world leaders because they love to screw things up. They got into their positions because of idiots for the most part.Now, now.

Funny thing is I have always been a right-wing social democrat. Slightly to the right of Vlad the Impaler and Emperor Qin, to be precise. Yet it seems that my view of mankind is more optimistic, at least less cynical, than that of certain opponents of war. On the other hand, the opponents seem to ignore the fruits of war I mentioned. Their own, probably not so bad living conditions are mostly the result of war.


"War is the father of us all, King of all.
Some it makes gods, some it makes men, some it makes slaves, some free.” (Heraclitus of Ephesos)
We may not be gods, but we are free thanks to wars waged on our behalf. And compared to previous generations we certainly live like gods because of many inventions made possible by war, strife, greed. Aye.

[Kaidonni]

Geoffrey: Not necessarily. But this is democracy, the people have the say. And they can be all too easily ignored by those with their snouts in the trough. My great grandparents and grandparents did not risk their lives in war just so an idiot can have their say over the vast majority.

Adrian: True, my living conditions might be the result of winning war. But people then go on and screw things up again. They expect people to die for them, and then act irresponsibly and mess up things again. I will not look on war as good, or optimistically on Humanity. We never learn our lessons...

Despite the fruits of war, I am not tempted to support war. We can get those things another way. I oppose war, and I'm ashamed that people look so happily on it. My grandparents and great grandparents risked their lives for the idiots we have in power, and for people to screw things up. It's those who look too kindly on the fruits of war who don't realise what it took, and what it destroyed. The next world war, I'll be one of those who run to survive, to 'fight another day.' I'd never sign up to the army, and I'd spit on conscription. Maybe our politicians can go and die for those fruits for once. Or maybe you'd like to? Maybe you want your son or daughter to die for a few fruits of war?

The grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence.

Anyway, fed up now...you're tiring me out. I don't really like debating much...go pick on someone else, or one day...BANG! ZOOM! Straight to the third moon of Omicron Persei 8! :P

EDIT: I think I'll just leave it at that. I oppose war, I am ashamed of Humanity. War may have its fruits, but at what cost? And where will it lead us if we don't learn from our lessons? And although sometimes it is true that the majority can be stupider than one idiot in power (yes, Geoffrey, agreeing to an extent with you here), that cannot be used to rationalise the destruction of any democracy, or the raping of it, by those few idiots. It's easy to fall into a pattern here. I'm unlucky enough to have an MP who doesn't care much about what the electorate feel, or fairness. Yeah...go pick on someone else now. :P

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Where would WWII be without Hitler and Stalin?

If they hadn't existed, it would've been someone else. The delicate political situations in their nations at the time opened the path to the dictators of this type.

[Kaidonni]

EMFM>I'll admit it can't be easy to be a leader of a people, but some people use that as an excuse to not try hard enough (just noticed one of your earlier posts).

Anyway, I'd rather duck out of this conversation because I'm not being coherent at times, and I don't like debating much. It seems to work me up, then I type in anger and don't say things properly. I had a time in the argument when I was being coherent, then I might have gone over the top in my wording, and not said things very well.

That said, I oppose war for many reasons, and wish our world leaders did a bit of a better job than they do. They might have a hard job, but that's no excuse for some of the things they get up to. I use the term 'idiots' about them because they are in a position to do a lot of damage, and don't always get there fully by virtue and support by the majority.

Sorry if I offended anyone, of course. I don't explain myself well anyway, and now I'm obsessed with editting my posts and getting things said perfect, which doesn't do me any good...

I will try to get involved in debates, but I'll hold back enough so that I don't go over the top again or anything. I might have a point in many of the things I say...but the operative term being 'in,' and that location being rather obscure at times.

[Faust|]

Now, now.

Funny thing is I have always been a right-wing social democrat. Slightly to the right of Vlad the Impaler and Emperor Qin, to be precise. Yet it seems that my view of mankind is more optimistic, at least less cynical, than that of certain opponents of war. On the other hand, the opponents seem to ignore the fruits of war I mentioned. Their own, probably not so bad living conditions are mostly the result of war.


"War is the father of us all, King of all.
Some it makes gods, some it makes men, some it makes slaves, some free.” (Heraclitus of Ephesos)
We may not be gods, but we are free thanks to wars waged on our behalf. And compared to previous generations we certainly live like gods because of many inventions made possible by war, strife, greed. Aye.


It appears you're still too idealistic...

Strength and selfishness are the root of good values, but you also have to realize what the actual situation is in your country and the world.

Ughh, ok, back to being soft-spoken... the philosophical drivel in this thread had just offended my taste and got my blood boiling. For example: to use this quote as relevant to the present time:

"War is the father of us all, King of all.
Some it makes gods, some it makes men, some it makes slaves, some free."

...is pretend talk. I wish for those days, but they are long gone!

[Viking]

Their own, probably not so bad living conditions are mostly the result of war.

Utter bollocks; technological advancementes are held back by war so much it is not even funny. The military budgets are insane; if all those money had been spent for the best for humanity, we'd been having tomorrow's techonology already (cancer treatment? aids? fusion?).

What war has taught us, is that war is horrible.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think wars are generally fought when we are too weak to take the best option, or too stupid, or not competant enough to see it through.

World War I was fought because no one was smart enough to say "hang on, why don't we just deal with the guy who shot the Arch Duke and not rampage through Serbia when only one Serb pulled the trigger."

War may bring progress through necessity, yes, but it ties up resources and extinguishes lives. How many poets, philosophers, scientists and good honourable men have died in war? How many have come back physically and mentally damaged.

The only reason I would fight a war would be to stop someone else from fighting it for me.

Do I believe hummanity is good? Yes, but I also think we can be weak and stupid, which is no excuse to stop trying.

[Big_John]

rawanda is a hotbed for invention these days.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

rawanda is a hotbed for invention these days.

Man I wish I lived there!

[Redleg]

Utter bollocks; technological advancementes are held back by war so much it is not even funny. The military budgets are insane; if all those money had been spent for the best for humanity, we'd been having tomorrow's techonology already (cancer treatment? aids? fusion?).

What war has taught us, is that war is horrible.

You might want to rephrase the first sentence slightly. Many technological advancements are because of war or the belief that war is coming.

Some involve the very thing we are sitting in front of typing away on. Not saying that its a benefit that outweighs the negative - only that your first sentence is inaccurate.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

World War I was fought because no one was smart enough to say "hang on, why don't we just deal with the guy who shot the Arch Duke and not rampage through Serbia when only one Serb pulled the trigger."


Austria wanted Serbia. The ultimatum was deliberately worded so the Serbs couldn't refuse. The Austrian ambassador (in the process of leaving Serbia) was shocked when the Serbs accepted most of the ultimatum.

[Adrian II]

rawanda is a hotbed for invention these days.Rwanda is not even at war these days. On the other hand, as Redleg said, the very medium we use to debate this issue is a spin-off strategic research done in the 1960's at the RAND Corporation. Even the very first video game was invented by a military researcher, William Higginbotham.

It is an unpalatable truth that most of our material advance since the age of the cave man is the result of war. Many of our political and social arrangements, too, are the result of strife and conflict, often of war itself.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Rwanda is not even at war these days. On the other hand, as Redleg said, the very medium we use to debate this issue is a spin-off strategic research done in the 1960's at the RAND Corporation. Even the very first video game was invented by a military researcher, William Higginbotham.

It is an unpalatable truth that most of our material advance since the age of the cave man is the result of war. Many of our political and social arrangements, too, are the result of strife and conflict, often of war itself.

That's not really a compelling argument though. The US economy wouldn't be where it is today without slavery. I don't think it's rational to look at the death tally from WWII and at the advancements in technology and such that came from it and say "well if it ain't broke don't fix it". Has any country ever embarked on the full scale spending that takes place during a war without an actual war going on? How many advancements have we made without war?

[Husar]

I will stop war...just wait... :inquisitive:

[Big_John]

That's not really a compelling argument though. The US economy wouldn't be where it is today without slavery. I don't think it's rational to look at the death tally from WWII and at the advancements in technology and such that came from it and say "well if it ain't broke don't fix it". Has any country ever embarked on the full scale spending that takes place during a war without an actual war going on? How many advancements have we made without war?moreover, i'm not convinced it's even an argument to begin with, compelling or not. life, human and otherwise, is dominantly about biological competition. all of our history, innovation and stasis, rise and collapse, beauty and horror.. all these things can be cast against a backdrop of competition because that is life. to say that advance comes from war seems to be painting with too fine a brush, missing the larger truth.

[Kaidonni]

Hmmmm...I'd like to chime in again to correct things I said earlier, now that I'm a little less wound-up.

I shouldn't have simply called our world leaders idiots. Of course they're idiots, but no more than you or I are, just that it's more noticed on those high up in society. But, what some of our world leaders do does seem to be bickering and acting like spoilt children. Just because they have a hard job never excuses them from doing the best they can and should. Many people have hard jobs, but that is never an excuse to act like some people act in society. Or to get away with starting conflicts.

I have a deep distrust of politicians. If they get where they get to by virtue, they either lose those virtues when they get there, or someone tries their darndest to destroy them for being the one good apple in a whole rotten bunch. Politics is full of deception, greed, lying, cheating and stealing.

And I will dispute the idea that politicians are brave. When did any of the MPs who support Iraq and Afghanistan send their children off to war, and sign up themselves? It's easy to be brave when you're sending someone else off to war from behind a desk. There are many more brave people elsewhere in life, overcoming greater difficulties than getting the electorate to agree with them on something. People fighting cancer, children surviving in war zones in abject poverty, doctors, nurses, firefighters, soldiers who have to put up with politicians who start wars (and let's face it, politicians do generally start them, we are all but pawns in their game).

There may be a few brave politicians and world leaders, but it's the people in the street who are truly brave, overcoming massive odds that those like Gordon Brown could never imagine. And is it brave to keep giving away money to nuclear superpowers on the grounds of 'charity' when pensioners can't afford heating in their own homes? Is it brave to send people off to war with insufficient gear, and then try to gag those who highlight this issue? Is it brave to deny a country's population a say in their future?

I was going to say something else then, too...but now I've forgotten. :wall:

Ah, yes. Maybe the majority is not always right, but that can be a fact that is abused all too often. Where do we draw the line on our representatives ignoring us? How do we stop them from abusing the notion that sometimes, what's popular isn't always right and what's right isn't always popular? I mean, what about some of the terrorists, the Nazis, murderers, and the like? They could abuse it. We have to be very careful with what we say.

Have to go now, but at least I managed to get something out more coherently...bye. Sorry about the incoherence earlier, of course.

[Kagemusha]

"War is sweet to those who have never experienced it."

- Pindar

Saying war is a good thing is just like believing in world peace. Both statements are absurd in the world we live in and show strange idealism, which is not realistic. Every war is human tragedy, no matter what benefit the war will bring and should be avoided if possible. There is no glory in war, only death and suffering.

[Adrian II]

To say that advance comes from war seems to be painting with too fine a brush, missing the larger truth.I agree, hence my original remark that mankind's advance comes from war, competition, greed, in short: strife.

Most people will embrace competition and even greed as either good or at least as productive motives of man. They refuse to do the same with war, even though war is the midwife of major progress. Apparently, society can't do without it, and man can't do without the depth of feeling that comes with war. It's a love-hate thing, sure, but it would be wrong to discount the love aspect. In the end, we all admire Achilles and we understand his life choice, even though we wouldn't want to end up on the tip of his spear.

@Kaidonni. I don't think that many world leaders wilfully stir up problems. I think most world leaders are the result of the problems their nations face, rather than the instigators of these problems.

[Andres]

Conflict or injustice don't bother me anymore, stupidity does.



One could argue that conflict and injustice are forms of stupidity.

[Kaidonni]

@Kaidonni. I don't think that many world leaders wilfully stir up problems. I think most world leaders are the result of the problems their nations face, rather than the instigators of these problems.

I doubt that all of the world leader stir up problems wilfully (sp?). In fact, most believe what they are doing is right, and that they are not stirring up trouble. Even Mugabe believes that. Hitler believed that. However, I'm one of those who isn't too patient when people high up mess things up, because at times, it seems like there'll be a whitewash and no lessons learnt (inquiries need never result in people losing their jobs, just in the truth being revealed so next time a better judgement can be made - of course, there are exceptions).

Got to go now, but sorry for being too general about our world leaders.

[Viking]

You might want to rephrase the first sentence slightly. Many technological advancements are because of war or the belief that war is coming.

Some involve the very thing we are sitting in front of typing away on. Not saying that its a benefit that outweighs the negative - only that your first sentence is inaccurate.


Does not alter the fact that, if the money was spent on civil science, we could have gotten to this techonolgy at a much earlier point. War is costly.

It is good at driving competetition, but in todays world, the technological development is as fast as ever and war/war preparation is not driving it; money is.



Apparently, society can't do without it, and man can't do without the depth of feeling that comes with war.

Wars came with society and civilization; but that society needs it is as wrong as....look around where you live, Adrian, ask the people one the street, do they want more war? No.

[drone]

A great, but deranged, man once said:

Life, which you so nobly serve, comes from destruction, disorder and chaos. Take this empty glass. Here it is, peaceful, serene and boring. But if it is... destroyed... Look at all these little things. So busy now. Notice how each one is useful. What a lovely ballet ensues so full of form and color. Now, think about all those people that created them. Technicians, engineers, hundreds of people who'll be able to feed their children tonight so those children can grow up big and strong and have little teeny weeny children of their own, and so on and so forth. Thus, adding to the great chain... of life.
Be careful around cherry pits, AdrianII. ~D

[Adrian II]

[..] look around where you live, Adrian, ask the people on the street, do they want more war? No.History is not a committee, and the validity of my views does not depend on what my neighbours think, or say they think.

Even though most (western) citizens have been firmly conditioned to publicly abhor violence, they are nonetheless fascinated by war, crime, etcetera. Violence is a constant backdrop to our popular culture, not just books, films and comics, but even fashion (the 'victim look', anyone?) and music (gangsta, death metal, but also rock-'n'-roll or country & western can have some very violent themes). People surreptitiously long for what I called the depth of feeling that comes with extreme violence, true drama, true tragedy.

Man is at odds with himself. A famous Chinese curse says: "May all your wishes come true!" That is wisdom; the purest acknowledgment that man is torn between opposing desires, fears and views.

[Kaidonni]

History is not a committee, and the validity of my views does not depend on what my neighbours think, or say they think.

Oh dear, I'm afraid you're going to have to learn to care about what other people think a bit more. Otherwise, I should believe the best way to end over-population is in one foul swoop, massive genocide, and whatever you say does not invalidate that view in anyway. In fact, let's let murderers, Nazis and fanatical Muslims get their way - the validity of their views doesn't depend on what we think, afterall. You aren't a man alone on this world, there are other people to think about too.

I'm gonna leave my contributions to this thread there. Have fun without me. Not too much, though.

[Kralizec]

I agree, hence my original remark that mankind's advance comes from war, competition, greed, in short: strife.

I'd agree with you for most about history, but war isn't the prime form of competition between countries anymore (ignoring third world countries)


Saying war is a good thing is just like believing in world peace. Both statements are absurd in the world we live in and show strange idealism, which is not realistic. Every war is human tragedy, no matter what benefit the war will bring and should be avoided if possible. There is no glory in war, only death and suffering.

It's the tragedy of war that makes it interesting.

[Caius]

Think about this: If there were no wars, no nothing, I bet there will a group of people that will want to be superior to the rest, and therefore, your conception of the world would be destroyed.

[Adrian II]

I'd agree with you for most about history, but war isn't the prime form of competition between countries anymore (ignoring third world countries).Good point, modern society has largely replaced war by the preparation for small-scale war and strategies to make (and keep) large-scale war redundant (MAD). Some countries put more effort into this than others; they also have more Nobel laureates, and I don't mean Peace Prize laureates...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Does not alter the fact that, if the money was spent on civil science, we could have gotten to this techonolgy at a much earlier point. War is costly.

It is good at driving competetition, but in todays world, the technological development is as fast as ever and war/war preparation is not driving it; money is.

You've got one basic disconnect there. Absent the war (hot or cold) the money WOULD NOT BE SPENT on civil science. It would be spent to placate the voters or to further feather the nests of the "haves." Only when the nation/state/group believes their very existence to be threatened do they pony up the money/time/effort to make amazing things happen. AFTER that, many of these developments get used to make money and make our lives better.
The computers we use to publish our arguments for one another exist because we needed to break enemy communication codes and calculate the probable impact points of large shells traveling dozens of miles under changing conditions. We have smaller computers because they HAD to cram one into an Apollo Command Capsule and we HAD to get to the moon so that the Soviets wouldn't put a base there and hold the ultimate in "high ground" (Heilein had some interesting points about what you can do with a rock from the top of a gravity well -- high gound matters).


Wars came with society and civilization; but that society needs it is as wrong as....look around where you live, Adrian, ask the people one the street, do they want more war? No.

Violence/death is a necessary component of existence. The food you consume is usually the result of something's death, or the harvesting of the reproductive components of that plant. Conflict is the antecedent OF society. Without the conflict for resources, without the conflict among other groups of similar beings for resources, what drive for social order beyond the hunter/gatherer level would there have been?

Adrain is NOT saying "war is good, let's go have a bash at the Flemish for a bit of fun." He's asserting that it is an integral component of society itself and that to dismiss it, or assume it can simply be done away with is polyanna thinking at best.

Re-channeled, perhaps. Ritualized to minimize the horrific cost, often done in the past and still done today. Done away with entirely, impossible.

[Andres]

Just to make sure that I'm understanding the OP correct:

Imaginary situation: country A and B are arguing over a piece of land.

Instead of a peaceful solution, you'd prefer a bloody conflict with thousands of casualties because the conflict will gain us a few good books or movies and some interesting technological innovations?

[Fragony]

Violence/death is a necessary component of existence. The food you consume is usually the result of something's death, or the harvesting of the reproductive components of that plant. Conflict is the antecedent OF society. Without the conflict for resources, without the conflict among other groups of similar beings for resources, what drive for social order beyond the hunter/gatherer level would there have been?

Not conflict, necesity. It isn't conflict that makes us plant seeds it's the simple fact that we need food, conflict arises when one party feels it's necesary to conquer other's recources. In the meantime we have probaby been developing new methods to harvest more efficiently, that is progress as well.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

bsent the war (hot or cold) the money WOULD NOT BE SPENT on civil science. It would be spent to placate the voters or to further feather the nests of the "haves." Only when the nation/state/group believes their very existence to be threatened do they pony up the money/time/effort to make amazing things happen.

This in incorrect. Only in the past have nations ponied up the money/time/effort. It's a fallacy to assume that society can't advance itself. Adrian is arguing that this won't happen because people love violence, which is also false. People love pretend violence. Even boxing and those shakycam streetfights are pretend to a certain extent, just enough real stuff to make them fun. There's a line you don't want to cross though.

[Adrian II]

Good points there, Seamus.
The computers we use to publish our arguments for one another exist because we needed to break enemy communication codes and calculate the probable impact points of large shells traveling dozens of miles under changing conditions.Indeed, after WWII large computers were developed primarily for military nuclear research and for calculating ballistic missile flightpaths. In fact, that is exactly what Higginbotham was tasked with at Brookhaven National Laboratory at the time when he developed "Tennis for Two"
Adrain is NOT saying "war is good, let's go have a bash at the Flemish for a bit of fun." He's asserting that it is an integral component of society itself and that to dismiss it, or assume it can simply be done away with is polyanna thinking at best.Have a drink on me sometime. I know that some of my views concide with yours, still it's good to see someone address the main point instead of speculative side-issues.
Re-channeled, perhaps. Ritualized to minimize the horrific cost, often done in the past and still done today. Done away with entirely, impossible.To a certain extent, people and societies can be taught to control these urges. Too much control is unrealistic and detrimental though.

I compare this to raising children. Contrary to popular belief kids are no innocent angels who are gradually corrupted and sexualised by adult society. Children are born egomaniacs. They are egoistical, vindictive, jealous and lustful. That's okay, those are preservation instincts that have served mankind for ages. Nonetheless, kids need to learn to control them, channel them, suppress or postpone them in their own interest and that of society. Apart from education and quality time and all that, they need to have the crap beaten out of them every now and then, accompanied by a good lecture on how their egoistic urges, if uncontrolled, will make their lives brutal, miserable and lonely. On the other hand, if you beat them into submission and they lose the will to assert themselves, to follow their opinions and inclinations, to covet their neighbours' position, possessions or women etcetera, you will turn them into listless zombies.

[Vladimir]

I'm not surprised as to how many people default to war when conflict is mentioned or fixate on it once the actual word us used.

Remember that war is the ultimate form of conflict and nuclear war, currently, is the penultimate form (sorry, I like using that word because it reminds me of Stewie). Generally there are many conflicts that lead up to war. If war is waged, one or both sides have already faced a string of defeats and start out in the hole. Seamus' goal of ritualized warfare will most likely never come about as the Romans, French, et al have demonstrated the ultimate futility of it. I've made my 3rd decade my strategic thinking one and beg everyone here not to wait so long.

This is a good thread. :2thumbsup:

[Fragony]

I compare this to raising children. Contrary to popular belief kids are no innocent angels who are gradually corrupted and sexualised by adult society. Children are born egomaniacs. They are egoistical, vindictive, jealous and lustful.

Talk about Houellebecq :beam:

edit, ah well, no reason to not repost the deliciously cynical take of Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. Bit outdated when it comes to international politics but very easy to apply on any level of society when it comes to conflict.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm

[Viking]

History is not a committee, and the validity of my views does not depend on what my neighbours think, or say they think.

Yes, because ultimately your neighbours make up society.



Even though most (western) citizens have been firmly conditioned to publicly abhor violence, they are nonetheless fascinated by war, crime, etcetera. Violence is a constant backdrop to our popular culture, not just books, films and comics, but even fashion (the 'victim look', anyone?) and music (gangsta, death metal, but also rock-'n'-roll or country & western can have some very violent themes). People surreptitiously long for what I called the depth of feeling that comes with extreme violence, true drama, true tragedy.

Movies and books always make a strong impression; it is not war-exclusive siutations that make people like to watch/read war movies/books. Furhtermore, violence is not war. It's the stright forward violence that impress, the one where the star's family is not bombed to pieces and his best friends die at the frontline. That is when violence is "sad". People like to watch the movies, but they do not wish that their country was invaded and that they had to save it.




You've got one basic disconnect there. Absent the war (hot or cold) the money WOULD NOT BE SPENT on civil science.

That is hard to tell.



The computers we use to publish our arguments for one another exist because we needed to break enemy communication codes and calculate the probable impact points of large shells traveling dozens of miles under changing conditions. We have smaller computers because they HAD to cram one into an Apollo Command Capsule and we HAD to get to the moon so that the Soviets wouldn't put a base there and hold the ultimate in "high ground" (Heilein had some interesting points about what you can do with a rock from the top of a gravity well -- high gound matters).

The computers we use today are a result of commercial development, scientific computers do not need hardcore graphics cards or a fancy OS.
If the military hadn't invented the computer, commercial forces would.



Violence/death is a necessary component of existence. The food you consume is usually the result of something's death, or the harvesting of the reproductive components of that plant.

Then again, this thread is not arguing against animals well.


Conflict is the antecedent OF society. Without the conflict for resources, without the conflict among other groups of similar beings for resources, what drive for social order beyond the hunter/gatherer level would there have been?

Conflict is not synonymous with with war. As well, the desire and need for better crops could also lead technological development early on.


He's asserting that it is an integral component of society itself and that to dismiss it, or assume it can simply be done away with is polyanna thinking at best.

Which is utterly wrong. Humans have a desire to be the better and the victorious; this points to any sort competition, including the 1 vs 1 on the Xbox 360, and not war in particular.

[Samurai Waki]

War is a veeerrry broad term anyway, from your Corporations who both advertise to the same client-type, Your Countries who attempt to remain on top of the economic and humanitarian scale, and of course your Shoot Outs. However the end result is always marked by strife, and of course somebody is always going to the low-blow (usually the Laborers, Peons, Grunts etc.) And even in countries where your Lifestyle is very good based on the items you have, or what your house is made of, somebody somewhere is actually get hurt (in the short or long term) because of it. Its easy being a Martyr for the Worlds Poor, Starving, Huddled Masses, when you drive around in your Car, have a comfy desk job, call your girlfriend on your cell phone, and Chat it up with friends online.

[Husar]

You can really see it in Africa, they invent new techniques to use modern advanced machetes every day. They also invented children as soldiers and just look how the whole continent prospers! :freak:

[drone]

The computers we use today are a result of commercial development, scientific computers do not need hardcore graphics cards or a fancy OS.
If the military hadn't invented the computer, commercial forces would.
The foundations of modern computing were the results of military spending. Without the upfront capital for R&D supplied by the military, it would have never gotten off the ground. 30 years ago, nobody expected so many people to have PCs, the idea was considered absurd.

You are confusing current advancement with the technological leaps needed to get to the commercially viable point.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Its easy being a Martyr for the Worlds Poor, Starving, Huddled Masses, when you drive around in your Car, have a comfy desk job, call your girlfriend on your cell phone, and Chat it up with friends online.

Isn't it impossible by definition ~:confused:

[Big_John]

war can be seen as the corruption of competition, not the epitome thereof. the process consuming itself. not necessarily my views, but i've run into that idea somewhere before.

[Viking]

The foundations of modern computing were the results of military spending.

They are, but did not at all have to.


30 years ago, nobody expected so many people to have PCs, the idea was considered absurd.

And if the military had kept the computers to themselves, it'd still been. However, commercial forces saw the computer's use, and as a consequence we now find them in our homes.


You are confusing current advancement with the technological leaps needed to get to the commercially viable point.

A "leap" is highly relative.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Have a drink on me sometime. I know that some of my views concide with yours, still it's good to see someone address the main point instead of speculative side-issues.

Glad to, and I'd gladly stand you to a 2nd round. Might have to work on the co-location portion a bit first...:cheesy:


This in incorrect. Only in the past have nations ponied up the money/time/effort. It's a fallacy to assume that society can't advance itself. Adrian is arguing that this won't happen because people love violence, which is also false. People love pretend violence. Even boxing and those shakycam streetfights are pretend to a certain extent, just enough real stuff to make them fun. There's a line you don't want to cross though.

Well, it's a fallacy to state my point in the phrasing I did. It would be more correct to say that:

Historically, a large majority of cultures have not made significant efforts at funding such "civil science" efforts absent the prompting of war or analogous emergency. Barring a broad alteration in human attitude and practice -- of which I currently see no evidence -- I will conclude that this "prompted only by war or dire emergency" approach will continue.

[Banquo's Ghost]

It's an interesting discussion, and an intriguing premise. What we don't have of course, is a control experiment.

One can wonder what the world might look like, and how far it may have advanced, if conflict was not a defining characteristic of Mankind to date.

Unless one counts the Harry Lime Thesis, of course.

[Vladimir]

It's an interesting discussion, and an intriguing premise. What we don't have of course, is a control experiment.

One can wonder what the world might look like, and how far it may have advanced, if conflict was not a defining characteristic of Mankind to date.

Unless one counts the Harry Lime Thesis, of course.

It figures that I'd Google something Banquo says and the top hit is a JSTOR article. :2thumbsup:

[Adrian II]

It figures that I'd Google something Banquo says and the top hit is a JSTOR article. :2thumbsup:Google "cuckoo clock".

[Samurai Waki]

Isn't it impossible by definition ~:confused:

Sorry. Meant to be Tongue-in-Cheek.

[drone]

And if the military had kept the computers to themselves, it'd still been.
The military didn't, so PCs became part of the aforementioned "peace dividend". Taxpayer dollars well spent.

However, commercial forces saw the computer's use, and as a consequence we now find them in our homes.
Commercial forces saw the computer's use, but did not originally develop them. Sure, market forces have pushed processor and graphics tech, but this is a relatively new phenomenon. From 1946 (ENIAC) to 1977 (Apple][, TRS-80), the home PC was no driving force. Computing foundations in both hardware (transistors, size reduction, storage, etc) and software (OS's, languages, databases, communication protocols) resulted from either R&D or contracts funded by the military. Without these building blocks, computers would not be commercially viable.

[Faust|]

,,,

[Viking]

The military didn't, so PCs became part of the aforementioned "peace dividend". Taxpayer dollars well spent.

Commercial forces saw the computer's use, but did not originally develop them. Sure, market forces have pushed processor and graphics tech, but this is a relatively new phenomenon. From 1946 (ENIAC) to 1977 (Apple][, TRS-80), the home PC was no driving force. Computing foundations in both hardware (transistors, size reduction, storage, etc) and software (OS's, languages, databases, communication protocols) resulted from either R&D or contracts funded by the military. Without these building blocks, computers would not be commercially viable.

Well, anyhow, the point that I am trying to make is that military is not at all necessary for our modern techonologies. It is like blaming USA for that the nuclear bomb ever was invented, or blaming a caveman way back in time for the invention of weapons.

[Vladimir]

Google "cuckoo clock".

Wiki. No surprise. :shrug:

[Dîn-Heru]

I agree with the general gist of the OP. That it is the intellectual journey through life that is important. But I would like to adress the notion that this excludes hoping for world peace and and justice.

From the OP I get the feeling that you think world peace is synonomus with everybody holding hands singing "koomba ya" (sp?) around a campfire.

Conflict and disagreement is an integral and necessary part of life, if everybody got things the way they wanted they would be spoilt and we'd end up with conflict anyway. But do we have to let conflict and disagreement descend into war?

Considering that most conflicts are about limited resources, of which human labour and intelligence is part, do we honestly desire to throw lives away needlessly?

If we had proper bargaining channels, (or simply a will not to turn to killing eachother to get what we want) could we not reach agreements that benefit both/all parties?

Like you said Adrian:

Most conflicts (of interest or arms) result from opposing views, fears and misunderstandings, even miscommunication. They are seldom the result of outright evil on both sides

If governments could talk and make deals and not bicker like little children then there would be justice as well because the parties freely entered an agreement.

The point is that war is no longer, if it ever were, a good way to solve conflict, so why should we not hope for a world where people do not have to fear getting killed over dissagreements that stem from fear, misunderstandings and miscommunication.

Conflict bring it on, war no thanks..

[Banquo's Ghost]

Wiki. No surprise. :shrug:

Sorry Vlad. :embarassed:

The quote to which I referred is from the film "The Third Man", where the antagonist Harry Lime says:


Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.

It was a tongue-in-cheek example of a control experiment.

[Vladimir]

Sorry Vlad. :embarassed:

The quote to which I referred is from the film "The Third Man", where the antagonist Harry Lime says:



It was a tongue-in-cheek example of a control experiment.

:laugh4: You didn't know of my fetish for JSTOR. Consider it a compliment and be glad it wasn't, Wiki. Never heard of that film but the quote is familiar.

[Soulforged]

What makes me tick is aesthetic and intellectual gratification. Art, good books, theatre, film, anything that explores the human condition in an honest way. And that isn't stupid. Conflict or injustice don't bother me anymore, stupidity does.

I see life as an intellectual adventure, more than a physical adventure. The true quest is inside your head (and heart). I guess such insights come with age. I am ready for the Zimmer frame. Yes Doctor, I have taken my yellow pills this morning, thank you.
In other words... You're Dorian Grey, nice to meet you. Can I see your picture?

[Adrian II]

In other words... You're Dorian Grey, nice to meet you.Chertkov, rather.