My minimal beliefs

[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...

[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.

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.

[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.

[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

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!