NationStates Jolt Archive

If this is too long, it's probably best you not make rash presumptory replies. Read it or don't read it, not my problem.

Taken from my thread on Forums.NewspeakDictionary.com:

Social evolutionism, for lack of a better term, describes a system in which chaos in the form of destructive wars between industrialized nations, or at the least, developed nations, are encouraged to promote destruction, which in turn gives incentive to rebuild a stronger and better society. A good example of this is knocking over an ant hill; the hill is build stronger and better, and the surviving ants are better and stronger. Social evolutionism is based upon social Darwinism, a commonly misunderstood concept. Not applying to racial theories, social Darwinism entails so-called "survival of the fittest" between individuals, groups, communities, societies, or nation-states.

Social Darwinism itself is not based entirely on Darwin's theory of evolution, but also on the works of many thinkers and philosophers throughout the 18th to 19th centuries.

It is the philosophy of social evolutionism that competition leads to greater change than cooperation. Change, being the highest form of existence, drives societies to become better and stronger through growth, and through pain and conflict and struggle. Effectively, chaos leads to change, while order leads to stagnation and corruption of society.

With the fact of evolution comes great responsibility to adapt our society into something better than we have today. Generally, the realization I have had is that societies don't become better overnight, and they don't become better in response to the "good times". Without negative input, there is no adaptation to avoid such input. To evolve a better society, there has to be struggle, conflict, and chaos in order to promote growth, and evolution. There can be no beneficial adaption without chaos. Sure, you can have growth through order, but it isn't as quick or as widespread, or as accepted as through chaos.

Take point in example: if one wanted to establish socialism in a wealthy capitalist nation like America, or a peaceful social democratic Sweden, how would one do it without it being in RESPONSE to a stimuli? People are generally apathetic in times of peace, and will not change into something more radical while their bellies are largely full and peace rides above them. Socialism would only be viable in cases of disorder, natural disasters, or economic or political catastrophes.

Another example: the American revolution would have never happened if there was no stimulus from the British as perceived by the American colonists to be oppressive. Without chaos, there is no natural growth. With order, there is very little growth and change.

The best way to promote change and evolution is, for example, to bring two sides together. They fight, and some of them die, and that's truly a shame. But in the end, the surviving whole is stronger, smarter, and better than the ones who perished, because they are the strongest of the lot. Examples of this are antibiotic-resistant microbes, and perhaps most famous of all: super-strains of tuberculosis resistant to most, if not all, forms of medication known to man.

I see capitalism as being the best change-driven economic system. Being a former socialist, and still politically liberal and progressive, I do think capitalism requires heavy restrictions and regulations in order to ensure worker's rights. I do think though that innovation should be rewarded, and the only answer in socialism to reward is a slightly higher divided pay. I'm unhappy with socialism as has been tried throughout the world, and I don't think it deserves much more thought, to be honest. What works, works. America's system needs improvements, and needs additional regulations in my opinion, but it has endured for more than two-hundred-fifty years, and that says something. Additionally, government needs restrictions and heavy regulations, in the form of voting and recall. Democracy ensures that politicians will be held accountable for their actions.

I feel order leads to stagnation and lack of improvement, development, advancement, and change. I therefore feel that chaos, or rather, ordered chaos in the form of conflicts involving societies and not just regular people off the streets leads to greater change than through order. Through order, people are largely content, their bellies are full, and they're happily watching TV. Why would they want to turn to systems like communism, socialism, or even more exotic forms like totalitarianism or fascism that people here ascribe to and wish to impose on the rest of society? People drugged on the stale fruits of society don't care about change. They only wish for change when they are in conflict with themselves and others, and are in distress. That's a simple fact of life.

We've suffered world wars, and numerous, endless wars throughout history. We've been at each other's throats, but look at the good that has come of it. We've travelled to other planetary bodies, we've split the atom, and we've written sonnets. Could these things have happened through order? Yes. But it would've taken centuries to thousands of years longer.

Chaos is not the ultimate good. There is no good or bad, there is only order and chaos and evolution. To fight evolution is to fight history. To structure society into an egalitarian paradise is impossible, anti-evolutionary, and inhuman (in the sense it is not what humans are meant to do). As I said before, in a society where everyone is happy, why would they want further change? Society would dangerously stagnate. This is why egalitarianism is not the answer.

So what is the answer?

I don't have all the answers. I've only just found this mode of thinking rather recently after my long bout of apathy and lethargic thoughts.

What I do know is that capitalism is the best system of economics. It's been tried and done, and works just fine. However, no system is without a set of improvements and regulations to make it better and more bearable. Capitalism requires oversight in the form of heavy regulations to ensure that all businesses "play it by the book", so to say. On the flip side, government requires regulation in the form of democracy. Politicians should be accountable for their actions, and governments shouldn't degenerate into a 1984 or a Brave New World nightmare in which chaos is shut out forever and replaced by permanent, stagnating order.

I think that covers everything, and this should be sufficient to explain my new platform.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Imperialism: http://forums.newspeakdictionary.com/viewtopic.php?t=2927

So... people must die so we can evolve faster? And evolve to where? Isn't happyness the one thing to strive for, not technological advantages?

tl;dr

So... people must die so we can evolve faster? And evolve to where? Isn't happyness the one thing to strive for, not technological advantages?

I agree entirely with this response. Theoretically speaking in Social evolutionism, the most efficient way of advancing society is putting all of us through hell our entire lives so that only the requisite number of humans to propagate the species lives on. And we also have the clearly racist, sexist, and heterosexist notion of evolution used here. Apparently since the white Europeans killed off most of the original populations in North and South America then "we all" "advanced"...since advancement is defined by power and conflict, social power structures like patriarchy or some other replacement is need for "advancement" to be managed and to recognize who is and who is not "advanced"...and lest we forget, "advancement" is carried through reproduction, something that is restricted to opposite-sexed couples; so I imagine homosexuals and all non-reproduction centered relationships are inherently "inefficient" and "unnatural" Do not tell me you are progressive...that you have x-number of black or gay friends, because you clearly don't understand how antithetical your words are to an ideological concept that is inclusive of them.

A strange and quite facist post really, and it totaly fails to take into account the time line or circumstances of how evolution works.

So I guess this is one of them there trolls, and not one to sing about in the thread about 'interesting trolls'

"So me and mine have to lay down and die so you can live in your 'better world'?"

-Mal, "Serenity"

edit: If there's no good and bad, it's meaningless to talk about what humans are "meant" to do or not "meant" to do. Similarly (as has been mentioned) technology is not a good in itself, particularly if there is no good and bad. It is merely what you think is good. Now, the assertion that there is no good or bad cannot be proven true or false - I think there's such a thing as right and wrong, good and bad, but I can't prove it to you. However, even if we accept for the sake of argument your assumption that there is no good or bad, it can only defend "amorality." That is, it can defend your right to do whatever you can get away with. . . but it cannot justify saying that X, Y, or Z is "inhuman" or "unhealthy" or "best." If this is your moral theory, we can only assume that you are preaching this doctrine not for our good, but for your own benefit, and we have no reason to believe you. Why should I trust anyone who says there's no such thing as good and bad? They may be correct, but I would be foolish to trust someone without any moral compulsion to treat me decently.

I think that covers everything, and this should be sufficient to explain my new platform.

In other words, you support and approve of the actions of Al Qaeda and associated extremist bombers, as they help build a stronger and better America, yes?

I guess not everyone experiences that stage in life at around 3-5 years when basic empathy is developed, eh? :p

We have to kill all the weak societies so they can become strong!


Oh no wait, that makes no sense at all.

I guess not everyone experiences that stage in life at around 3-5 years when basic empathy is developed, eh? :p

Some people only have empathy for those around them, or those in plain sight.

It's easy to have zero empathy for people you can't see.

Otherwise, the idea of the intercontinental ballistic missile wouldn't work at all.

tl;dr

But from I saw of it, it has trolling and possible puppetry written all over it.

Topic too long, head now sleepy.

Someone's been playing too much Dungeons and Dragons.

tl;df

Social Darwinism has been around for a long time.
I think I read somewhere some quote that I thought was Thomas Jefferson about how all governments need a violent war every couple hundred years just to keep them honest.
In a way, isn't that why the USA keeps sticking it's nose into every war that comes along now? The USA is overdue for a revolution that would clean up American politics. The US government, in an attempt to keep the people distracted from such, drag themselves into any conflict they can. War abroad is so much preferable to war at home. After all, war at home might result in real political change.
And before anyone jumps in with 'the democrats would be change from the republicans...' That isn't change. Same animal - Different color.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” - Thomas Jefferson

Anyone care for a goat to chew on?

Social Darwinism has been around for a long time.
I think I read somewhere some quote that I thought was Thomas Jefferson about how all governments need a violent war every couple hundred years just to keep them honest.
In a way, isn't that why the USA keeps sticking it's nose into every war that comes along now? The USA is overdue for a revolution that would clean up American politics. The US government, in an attempt to keep the people distracted from such, drag themselves into any conflict they can. War abroad is so much preferable to war at home. After all, war at home might result in real political change.
And before anyone jumps in with 'the democrats would be change from the republicans...' That isn't change. Same animal - Different color.

I don't think Jefferson was advocating anything even remotely close to what the OP has in mind, regardless his stance on tyrant killing. ;)

tl;df

tl;dr

But from I saw of it, it has trolling and possible puppetry written all over it.

tl;dr


What is Tl:dr(f)?

What is Tl:dr(f)?

Too long; didn't read/finish. :p

My own thoughts have recently drifted towards the concept of the "evolution" of the species as a whole...

...you prescribe violent conflict as a means to improve the survivors, and apparently are comfortable with the current divisions (race/religion/nationality, etc.) which promote such conflicts.

I feel this is self destructive in the long term, despite any short term benefits that might arise from such a (dubious) policy.

Not only might we destroy ourselves in the meantime, but nature doesn't hold still, and while we sit here fighting amongst ourselves to make us "stronger", some cataclysm might wipe us out.

It wouldn't even take an asteroid, or some similar event. With humanity so increasingly reliant upon it's technology and it's interconnectedness, any number of geologic events could be devestating enough to tilt the scale and send us on the fast track to extinction.

The only hope, really, in the long term for the survival of the species is interplanetary colonization...beyond our solar system, if possible. End this situation of having all of our eggs in a single basket. A HUGE undertaking by any stretch of the imagination.

So if we're so busy fighting...how will we ever get our act together to the degree necessary to undertake such an effort?? No single nation will ever be able to do it, barring several technological miracles, and that assumes the "competition" doesn't interfere.

Sure we might be "stronger", but sooner or later, by our own hands or the whims of nature, we'll all be dead...and then what will have been the point???

The really creepy thing here is that the OP reads like a treatise written by "The Shadows," which is an alien race in the science fiction TV show Babylon 5. No joke, this is, point for point, the exact same ideology that a fictional race of ancient aliens lives by in a TV show!! ROFL

tl;dr
tl;dr
Topic too long, head now sleepy.
tl;df

What is the point of these posts? If you cant be bothered to actually read the post (which was not exactly a Russian novel), and have absolutely nothing constructive or intelligent to say, why bother posting at all?

Are you truly that self-absorbed that you think everyone is dying to know that you glanced at it but were too lazy to finish reading the post (reading is hard)?

The really creepy thing here is that the OP reads like a treatise written by "The Shadows," which is an alien race in the science fiction TV show Babylon 5. No joke, this is, point for point, the exact same ideology that a fictional race of ancient aliens lives by in a TV show!! ROFL

Yeah I was thinking of that too. LOLCHAOS!

And before anyone jumps in with 'the democrats would be change from the republicans...' That isn't change. Same animal - Different color.

Actually it's same colour different animal.

Leave me out of 'advancement', and 'progress', if it means constant war and murder. What makes you think societies need to change? If balance of work/happiness is found, why change it? Like the old saying goes: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." However, current society could do with a major overhaul.

you prescribe violent conflict as a means to improve the survivors, That seems to be the general idea - that which survives to flourish is the better than what came before.

It wouldn't even take an asteroid, or some similar event. With humanity so increasingly reliant upon it's technology and it's interconnectedness, any number of geologic events could be devestating enough to tilt the scale and send us on the fast track to extinction.
I happen to disagree with this quite strongly - massive cataclysms would kill off a lot of the population (otherwise it wouldnt qualify to be a cataclysm), but will not drive us into extinction. Humans have an incredible ability to adapt - unless something happens to kill of almost all life on the planet, humans will find a way to survive.

The only hope, really, in the long term for the survival of the species is interplanetary colonization...beyond our solar system, if possible. End this situation of having all of our eggs in a single basket. A HUGE undertaking by any stretch of the imagination.
Without the cold war, and thus having further attention focused on social programs rather than on competitive pursuits, do you really think the Apollo program would have come into existence? It was that very competition between the US and the Soviets that led to massive technological leaps forward allowing us to put men on the moon.

If everyone is navel gazing, focusing production to social programs, and eliminating the competitive process, technological advancement will likely slow to a crawl. The very ability to colonize the stars will not suddenly appear in a stagnant environment.

So if we're so busy fighting...how will we ever get our act together to the degree necessary to undertake such an effort?? No single nation will ever be able to do it, barring several technological miracles, and that assumes the "competition" doesn't interfere.
You are far to pessimistic - no nation will ever be able to do it? That is ludicrous. Estonia might never have the resources, perhaps Tibet will have some problems, but it will not take the entire world to colonize another planet. The US could do it by itself - so long as it actually allows the competitive process to improve efficiencies and does not shift even farther towards nanny-state socialism. Were the US to devote significant resources to the project (which is certainly within reach), it could have a self-sustaining colony on Mars within 50 years.

Competition is what pushes us to improve - without challenge, we stagnate. That struggle is what spurs new ideas, encourages risk taking, pushes people to go farther and do better. This works on all levels from the individual on up to entire species - challenge forces growth and change. Exercise makes you healthy - if you don't get up off the couch once in a while to go for a run, you are probably morbidly obese. Competition, even if it is only with yourself, spurs development.

When some disaster does hit, the strong will survive. Those that know how to adapt, can cope with a variety of situations, can be pragmatic about the optimal use of resources, and has the resolve to use them effectively, are the ones that will survive. Those that just sit on their asses complaining about how it just isnt fair, are going to die.

Currently, we do have excess resources at our disposal - and thus we can support a wide variety of people. We have that luxury. When we push it too far and allow ourselves to stagnate (because competition isnt fair) then we lack the ability to cope with changing circumstances.

Sure we might be "stronger", but sooner or later, by our own hands or the whims of nature, we'll all be dead...and then what will have been the point???
I can guarantee you that you will die. It will happen.
The entire species will die. That will happen too.
Sooner or later, we are all dead. Everything dies.
Trying to deny that fact will only lead to heartbreak (at best).
If you dont see the point, then just lay down and give up.

I think the OP should read Turning the Tide by Noam Chomsky to get a real understanding of how American business, foreign policy, and intervention play out in the real world. Believe me, there is no one out there thinking that war is in our best interest to keep all of us plebians fit and innovative. Military intervention is the direct result of American domination of global resources. The history of relations between the US and Latin America is the perfect starting point.

Believe me, there is no one out there thinking that war is in our best interest to keep all of us plebians fit and innovative.

Actually, that's exactly what the OP thinks.

Were the US to devote significant resources to the project (which is certainly within reach), it could have a self-sustaining colony on Mars within 50 years.

If it weren't for technology and progress we'd never have to consider going to Mars to secure the future of the species. We may make it to Mars, but after that, what next? It's one thing to hop out to the next orbital ring, but there aren't any more planets after that that are even remotely close to being inhabitable.

Face it. People are going to exhaust everything. IF the world experiences a global catastrophe such as global warming where temperatures rise, crops die, droughts become more common place, then you're going to see people fighting for arable land and resources. You're going to see people dying in multiple wars; of famine; of disease; all at unprecedented levels. Furthermore, if we last long enough to see the complete exhaustion of petroleum, there isn't going to be much of an economy left and you will finally witness the end of the industrial age.

I guess we'll just have to sit back and see.

I agree with the notion that individuals and societies are improved by competition. However, I disagree with the stance that competition must be violent. In any contest, as Ace Ventura so eloquently put it, there is a winner and a loser; but why is it necessary for the loser to die bloodily?

If a person is able to lose gracefully, if he's defeated but not humiliated, then with a sense of motivation, that person can improve just as the victor does. I'm sure many Americans reading this will have seen, probably in a classroom, that poster listing the failures of men who later became Presidents--how Lincoln's law practice failed & Harry Truman's hardware store tanked (or something like that). Which, of course, is meant to tell you that failure isn't final.

Unless you're dead.

To sum up my point, competition drives evolution (which is, if I understand correctly, exactly what Darwin was driving at). Revolution may drive change at a faster pace than evolution, but it is ultimately wasteful and makes a great number of people unhappy as well. And since you're going to die no matter how successful you are, you might as well be happy for as much of your life as you can.

well you used paragraphs, sentences, punctuation and capital letters.

that puts you far ahead of most of those who think that social darwinism is a good idea.

So... people must die so we can evolve faster? And evolve to where? Isn't happyness the one thing to strive for, not technological advantages?

Not physically evolve, socially evolve.

Happiness is something we can strive for, but an excess of happiness leads to stagnation. We can balance technology with happiness very easily in an authoritarian system.

agree entirely with this response. Theoretically speaking in Social evolutionism, the most efficient way of advancing society is putting all of us through hell our entire lives so that only the requisite number of humans to propagate the species lives on. And we also have the clearly racist, sexist, and heterosexist notion of evolution used here. Apparently since the white Europeans killed off most of the original populations in North and South America then "we all" "advanced"...since advancement is defined by power and conflict, social power structures like patriarchy or some other replacement is need for "advancement" to be managed and to recognize who is and who is not "advanced"...and lest we forget, "advancement" is carried through reproduction, something that is restricted to opposite-sexed couples; so I imagine homosexuals and all non-reproduction centered relationships are inherently "inefficient" and "unnatural" Do not tell me you are progressive...that you have x-number of black or gay friends, because you clearly don't understand how antithetical your words are to an ideological concept that is inclusive of them.

You haven't read my proposal all the way through. First, there will be periods of warfare, and then periods of peace. These periods of war might only need to occur once every generation, or once every half-century, or once every century.

I am not racist at all, my dear replier. I suggest imperialism because it can be used to develop lesser societies. There's nothing racist about that. I am emphatically against racism in any form. Have you not read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Professor Jared Diamond?

A strange and quite facist post really, and it totaly fails to take into account the time line or circumstances of how evolution works.

So I guess this is one of them there trolls, and not one to sing about in the thread about 'interesting trolls'

So if someone disagrees with you, they're a troll?

If there's no good and bad, it's meaningless to talk about what humans are "meant" to do or not "meant" to do. Similarly (as has been mentioned) technology is not a good in itself, particularly if there is no good and bad. It is merely what you think is good. Now, the assertion that there is no good or bad cannot be proven true or false - I think there's such a thing as right and wrong, good and bad, but I can't prove it to you. However, even if we accept for the sake of argument your assumption that there is no good or bad, it can only defend "amorality." That is, it can defend your right to do whatever you can get away with. . . but it cannot justify saying that X, Y, or Z is "inhuman" or "unhealthy" or "best." If this is your moral theory, we can only assume that you are preaching this doctrine not for our good, but for your own benefit, and we have no reason to believe you. Why should I trust anyone who says there's no such thing as good and bad? They may be correct, but I would be foolish to trust someone without any moral compulsion to treat me decently.

I've never said technology was necessarily the ultimate good at all.

In other words, you support and approve of the actions of Al Qaeda and associated extremist bombers, as they help build a stronger and better America, yes?

I view the attempts of militarized Islamic factions as attempts to form an Islamic empire, which are no different from American attempts to form an empire. Oh wait, we already have one.

We have to kill all the weak societies so they can become strong!


Oh no wait, that makes no sense at all.

I've said, either through war weaker societies are destroyed, or weaker societies are conquered and developed.

That seems to be the general idea - that which survives to flourish is the better than what came before.

Thanks for your support. Can I get your email address so I could possibly add you to MSN?

well you used paragraphs, sentences, punctuation and capital letters.

that puts you far ahead of most of those who think that social darwinism is a good idea.

Thanks.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” - Thomas Jefferson

Don't forget innocent women and children, and the occasional kitten...

The countries more capable of survival will indeed live, but the most capable of survival are not always the most moral or the most humane.

Not physically evolve, socially evolve.

Happiness is something we can strive for, but an excess of happiness leads to stagnation. We can balance technology with happiness very easily in an authoritarian system.

Hmm, than again, authoritarian governments have been tried for most of the time and are nowadays more and more phased out by fresh democracies. WW2 saw the triumph of democracy over authoritarian states. They beat them on their own speciality. So if I get this right, by your own reasoning, democracy is the improved form of government over authoritarian rule.

Hmm, than again, authoritarian governments have been tried for most of the time and are nowadays more and more phased out by fresh democracies. WW2 saw the triumph of democracy over authoritarian states. They beat them on their own speciality. So if I get this right, by your own reasoning, democracy is the improved form of government over authoritarian rule.

You made a serious flaw in your argument; the Soviet Union was not democratic. Also, can you seriously consider Britain, France, and the Lowland Countries to be democratic when they still possessed colonial holdings, and oppressed millions of people? It's like calling the Confederacy a bonafide democracy in spite of the fact most of their society had few political rights, if any, and in spite of the fact that many of their society were literally in chains.

The countries more capable of survival will indeed live, but the most capable of survival are not always the most moral or the most humane.

That's true. And that's why my morality is flexible.

I don't disagree with Morgoth and it seems that no one here outright denies the basis of his message. I live in Thailand and I can see a great difference between societies of European background (including the USA) and Thai society. Whereas, the former have had major wars to contend with as a constant way of life as far back as history will take you and as recently as Kosovo, the latter has had two short-lived battles with Burma. In Europe, take early to mid-2oth century as an example, the utter chaos and destruction caused by the world wars alone was staggering and yet they managed to overcome (albeit with a lot of help) and get right back on top of the economic order.
In Thailand, you give a lot of people their first paycheck and they disappear on the piss. The quality of their work in just about any field is substandard and even riddled with dangerous defects. They have been mostly an agrarian economy until recently. Now when it's time to work the rice fields they get out and do it all day long and don't complain, but that's only a couple months out of a year. They don't try alternate crops in the off-rice season to make more money of which they incessantly complain they don't have enough. In a sense, they have enough to keep them happy, but they are stagnating. They are not innovative and are on the US priority watch list for piracy. Everything is a copy here and a shoddy one at that. The culture has become so outdated with regard to its people that the women are for the most part seeking foreign husbands or turning lesbian and more and more men are becoming gay transvestites. There's nothing wrong with any of that. I don't care, actually, but it's no way to preserve a culture or a race which is what they're always on about. They're losing fast and I think it is related to what the OP has stated.

I don't disagree with Morgoth and it seems that no one here outright denies the basis of his message. I live in Thailand and I can see a great difference between societies of European background (including the USA) and Thai society. Whereas, the former have had major wars to contend with as a constant way of life as far back as history will take you and as recently as Kosovo, the latter has had two short-lived battles with Burma. In Europe, take early to mid-2oth century as an example, the utter chaos and destruction caused by the world wars alone was staggering and yet they managed to overcome (albeit with a lot of help) and get right back on top of the economic order.
In Thailand, you give a lot of people their first paycheck and they disappear on the piss. The quality of their work in just about any field is substandard and even riddled with dangerous defects. They have been mostly an agrarian economy until recently. Now when it's time to work the rice fields they get out and do it all day long and don't complain, but that's only a couple months out of a year. They don't try alternate crops in the off-rice season to make more money of which they incessantly complain they don't have enough. In a sense, they have enough to keep them happy, but they are stagnating. They are not innovative and are on the US priority watch list for piracy. Everything is a copy here and a shoddy one at that. The culture has become so outdated with regard to its people that the women are for the most part seeking foreign husbands or turning lesbian and more and more men are becoming gay transvestites. There's nothing wrong with any of that. I don't care, actually, but it's no way to preserve a culture or a race which is what they're always on about. They're losing fast and I think it is related to what the OP has stated.

Thanks for being civil and unmoronic/unworthless.

The period of warfare Europe and Asia experienced in the thirties to forties was necessary for a period of rebuilding in which a stronger, united Europe was laid down as a foundation.

I don't know much about Thailand, really, but if things are as bad as you claim them to be, I feel sorry for your situation, and offer sympathy.

I don't think that war and imperialism can necessarily be painted as entirely beneficial or entirely wrong; one of the challenges of it is weighing the overall externalities to see if it was ultimately beneficial or not. A war or imperialist action that provides a clear benefit in terms of longer-term stability or economic gain may be worth it even if it has a high initial cost.

And in regard to social development, peacetime can be as productive or even more productive than wartime; a constant war is certainly undesirable for a number of reasons, whereas a prolonged period of peace can be either beneficial or harmful depending on how the nation in question handles its peacetime. Those that stagnate and allow themselves to weaken will fall, while those that use it wisely to strengthen themselves will benefit.

Thanks for being civil and unmoronic/unworthless.

The period of warfare Europe and Asia experienced in the thirties to forties was necessary for a period of rebuilding in which a stronger, united Europe was laid down as a foundation.

I don't know much about Thailand, really, but if things are as bad as you claim them to be, I feel sorry for your situation, and offer sympathy.

Thanks for the support, but it's they for whom I feel sorry. However, Thailand doesn't need my sympathy. I think they are in a different stage of cultural evolution that is being dramatically influenced by the global stage and on a completely different cycle of obstacle/overcome. Overall, it's nice to live here and I don't mean to paint them as idiots or underachievers. They just are where they are and where they're going is anybody's guess.

You include Asia in your last comment and by that I expect you mainly mean Japan, because that country had to rebuild after a terribly debilitating defeat and became the economic powerhouse of the region. They have also, I believe as a consequence, been a source of great technological and philosophical innovation while still retaining their signature cultural style. The overcame a great obstacle to their survival with great dignity and humility.

However, I take issue with the idea of predetermination that lingers in your posts. For example, "The period of warfare,...was necessary,..." Now do you mean "necessary" as in "it was necessary that a someone institute it; a conscious decision to go to war for the good of evolution" or do you mean something more along the lines of "instrumental--bearing a direct, relatively predictable manifestation of consequence"?

I feel the first idea is a bit like putting the cart before the horse.

Thanks for the support, but it's they for whom I feel sorry. However, Thailand doesn't need my sympathy. I think they are in a different stage of cultural evolution that is being dramatically influenced by the global stage and on a completely different cycle of obstacle/overcome. Overall, it's nice to live here and I don't mean to paint them as idiots or underachievers. They just are where they are and where they're going is anybody's guess.

You include Asia in your last comment and by that I expect you mainly mean Japan, because that country had to rebuild after a terribly debilitating defeat and became the economic powerhouse of the region. They have also, I believe as a consequence, been a source of great technological and philosophical innovation while still retaining their signature cultural style. The overcame a great obstacle to their survival with great dignity and humility.

However, I take issue with the idea of predetermination that lingers in your posts. For example, "The period of warfare,...was necessary,..." Now do you mean "necessary" as in "it was necessary that a someone institute it; a conscious decision to go to war for the good of evolution" or do you mean something more along the lines of "instrumental--bearing a direct, relatively predictable manifestation of consequence"?

I feel the first idea is a bit like putting the cart before the horse.

It could be an entirely conscious decision, or it could be an entirely unconscious decision.

Morgoth, why should societies constantly change? Why should we always try to increase technologically? Why should we progress, when progress means the death of all who stand in the way, the destruction of the environment, and mass suffering on a global scale?

Also, someone made comments about cultural evolution. That is an outdated mode of comparing societies. Societies/cultures/what-have-you do not all 'progress' on a certain path leading to one ultimate destination. They all vary and change upon the needs of the people living in them. For example, the Australian aborigines, who's culture remained virtually unchanged for 50,000 or so. Now, some of you may scoff at that, saying they are primitive and stupid, but they were, and some still are, masters of their environment. They're culture worked and they were happy and stable.

Hopefully that example shows that societies are not all linear and lead to one destination, but form to the needs of the people living in them.

^Troll: Same with the aboriginals of North America. They were stable as a society and as a way of life. But when the "settlers" came, they destroyed their way of life, have caused the extinction of at least one specie in the area, and have reduced the former aboriginals to small, enclosed settlements or alcoholics in today's society.
Their way of life sustained their environment and themselves. Wars may have occurred, but not nearly as often or for as long as the settlers' wars did. The settlers' way of life has caused significant damage to the few things that sustain them, generated many wars costing many lives, and to this day, has been the symbol of social stagnacy (obesity rates on the rise, a solid part of the economy is dependant on an increasingly lower-quality entertainment industry, and "the Big Three" have become pretty much the Considerably Sized Two, as Chrystler has been purchased by Mercedez-Benz and the other two are losing market share due to their reliance on age-old construction ethics and characteristics).

I'm busy. For now you can easily assume I oppose your theory, Morgoth, but I'll keep an open mind until I can formulate a solid argument. If the one I posted above, well...it's 3 in the morning and it may be very hastily put together. Take what you want from it.
I'll add to this topic if I can tomorrow.

<snip>



The ability to express a complex point concisely is a good one. Please obtain it.

You made a serious flaw in your argument; the Soviet Union was not democratic. Also, can you seriously consider Britain, France, and the Lowland Countries to be democratic when they still possessed colonial holdings, and oppressed millions of people? It's like calling the Confederacy a bonafide democracy in spite of the fact most of their society had few political rights, if any, and in spite of the fact that many of their society were literally in chains.
Soviet Union? I don't see a Soviet Union. :confused:

WW2 was between authoritarian states versus authoritarian and democratic states. After the Cold War, the Soviet Union had been destroyed and the colonies are practically all sovereign. So after wars authoritarity and imperialism has been out of fashion, making them the weaker, still by your logic.

Too long; didn't read/finish. :p

Actually tl;df means "Troll Lingo; Don't Feed." TYVM.

Soviet Union? I don't see a Soviet Union. :confused:

WW2 was between authoritarian states versus authoritarian and democratic states. After the Cold War, the Soviet Union had been destroyed and the colonies are practically all sovereign. So after wars authoritarity and imperialism has been out of fashion, making them the weaker, still by your logic.

Well although it's not so well known, after Stalin's death the party did make a genuine effort to do away with the apparachick autarky and truly make the party a popular body.