NationStates Jolt Archive

Now, assuming that no crackpot leaders or Imperialists get control, could the world ever be free of all war in the future? I say no, but I'd like to hear other opinons too.

No

is Hell.

So probably not.

War.
What is it good for? For srsly, I would hope so. Preferably through the world peace method rather than the destruction of all humans method.

I discovered I could vote for more then one option...

So I voted for ALL options.

'Cause I can!

It depends, really, on your definition of 'war'. If you mean a conflict between two nationstates, then yes, war may very well end along with the nationstate. However, large scale conflict will always exist, on whatever terms.

War is God's way of teaching us geography

Only if you're an American. [/Self-deprivating stereotype]

In 1984, the three remaining governments of the world were in a unique position in which they could wage either perpetual war, or perpetual peace. I think we're closer then we think to such a development.

In 1984, the three remaining governments of the world were in a unique position in which they could wage either perpetual war, or perpetual peace. I think we're closer then we think to such a development.

...care to explain?

Now, assuming that no crackpot leaders or Imperialists get control, could the world ever be free of all war in the future? I say no, but I'd like to hear other opinons too.



I say no, because crackpots and Imperialists will always hold power somewhere.

...care to explain?
It's really lengthy, I don't remember it too well, and it's kind of easy to screw up. You should probably read 1984 anyways.

It's really lengthy, I don't remember it too well, and it's kind of easy to screw up. You should probably read 1984 anyways.

Thats a good suggestion.

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" -Salvor Hardin.

Humanity is more or less incompetent. So there you do. :(

But one day, we will engage in digital pie wars and that will be a glorios day indeed! *nod*

How else are we going to control the population issues?

As long as cultures disagree there is potential for war. So quick answer is that we will see more of the same in the future.

Yes. We've already done it in large portions of the world. We can do it in the rest.

What is it good for? For srsly, I would hope so. Preferably through the world peace method rather than the destruction of all humans method.

Absolutely nothing. Say it again.

homosexuality. :p

How about bestiality. That's more kinky.

Click Stand;13379971']How else are we going to control the population issues?

homosexuality. :p

It's really lengthy, I don't remember it too well, and it's kind of easy to screw up. You should probably read 1984 anyways.

Basically, the world developed into three self-sufficient supernations (Oceania, which was the Americas, Australia, the UK, and some of southern Africa; Eurasia ,continental Europe and Russia; and EastAsia, basically China, Japan, and the Koreas). These nations were able to derive everything they needed from domestic sources and (except for the labor pool in disputed territories) really had nothing to fight for (not even an alliance could defeat one of these nations) and could simply have chosen not to fight at all because of all this.

No

There will always be one group who feels they can rule over the rest. Whenever there is land, resources, and $ involved there will there will always be war. Utopian cumba ya bullshit is just plain annoying and will never be the way of the world.

The pragmatist says let's mix one with the other. You could never prevent all war. You can try and create a situation where war can be avoided moreso than not. "Less war good."

Click Stand;13379985']How about bestiality. That's more kinky.

Well, if that's your thing, groovy. Personally, I hesitate to boink what I may end up eating. :p

Provided that humanity is around, there shall always be some form of conflict going on.

Well, if that's your thing, groovy. Personally, I hesitate to boink what I may end up eating. :p

Or the other way around. :eek:

Well, if that's your thing, groovy. Personally, I hesitate to boink what I may end up eating. :p

Oh, I always assumed you were a cannibal.

I only consume the souls of my prey, not the flesh. *nod*

Once again proving yourself to be a very spiritual man. No doubt the Pope would approve.

Click Stand;13380103']Oh, I always assumed you were a cannibal.

I only consume the souls of my prey, not the flesh. *nod*

Is it sad that my very first thought upon seeing this thread title was "HUNH! Good GOD y'all"?

I only consume the souls of my prey, not the flesh. *nod*

*Feeds Dick Cheney's soul to LG*

Is it sad that my very first thought upon seeing this thread title was "HUNH! Good GOD y'all"?

Nah. Edwin Starr literally popped out of my computer monitor.

*Feeds Dick Cheney's soul to LG*

:confused:

Something has to exist in order to be consumed, right?

Once again proving yourself to be a very spiritual man. No doubt the Pope would approve.

That bastard always eats the best souls. :mad:

:mad:

Hahahaaa.
*cackles as hundreds of tentacles type with blinding speed*

*Feeds Dick Cheney's soul to LG*

What soul? :p

:confused:

Something has to exist in order to be consumed, right?

:mad:

Nah. Edwin Starr literally popped out of my computer monitor.

Gosh. That sounds rather unpleasant, given how thoroughly decomposed he must be by now...

Gosh. That sounds rather unpleasant, given how thoroughly decomposed he must be by now...

Look on the bright side. He wouldn't have fit otherwise.

What soul? :p

Silly LG and your silly linear 4th dimensional concepts. Non-linear 4th dimensional actions. Now that's where it's at.

Nope. There will always be war.

"But as long as there are people there will always be war."

I've been playing too much Metal Gear.

As long as there's scarcity of one form or another, there will always be something worth fighting for. Even if it's just whuffie.

"And when there are democrazy, there will be always a war" -anonymous...

Now, assuming that no crackpot leaders or Imperialists get control, could the world ever be free of all war in the future? I say no, but I'd like to hear other opinons too.

I voted for every option, just to skew the results. :D

Honestly, I don't think we'll ever be free of war. As long as we have religions, money, land, and possessions, we'll have wars, too.

War seems to be an inevitable part of the human condition (if you want to call it that). I don't see how all wars could come to an end anytime in the near future.

I must side with my internal pessimist and note that even if war is ever abolished, there will still be politics and economics.

And besides, there are still far too many kings and aristocrats that need overthrowing.

of course, tribal/ethical squabbles can sometime make a war more powerful than wars which is made by political squabbles. At least at before-writing history period...

He, killing is the animal's natural instinct. If we don't kill, we can't get food and die... So, unless we have clorofil, we will not have anti-killing human...

Is it sad that my very first thought upon seeing this thread title was "HUNH! Good GOD y'all"?

No, it was mine also (and picturing Jackie Chan singing it too)

there is nothing at all inevitable about war and never has been.

the pretence that there is, was created by those who profit from them at the expence of everyone else.

petty conflicts between individuals there might always be, but organized warfare takes, well, organization, and that doesn't 'just happen'.

=^^=
.../\...

Silly LG and your silly linear 4th dimensional concepts. Non-linear 4th dimensional actions. Now that's where it's at.

*effects your cause* :)

Maybe if there were no more humans...

... or ants...

Or chimpanzees

there is nothing at all inevitable about war and never has been.

the pretence that there is, was created by those who profit from them at the expence of everyone else.

petty conflicts between individuals there might always be, but organized warfare takes, well, organization, and that doesn't 'just happen'.

naive much?

Maybe if there were no more humans...

... or ants...

naive much?

humans generally are. there would never have been invented wars if they weren't.

=^^=
.../\...

True true...
Notable example : Bush's forced to make Iraq into the 'western democracy', and what? Now it's failed pretty much. But he is still trying! Naive much?

Of course, my ignore to what the Majapahit done badly can be classified as Naive too...

Now, assuming that no crackpot leaders or Imperialists get control, could the world ever be free of all war in the future? I say no, but I'd like to hear other opinons too.
Nah. The fact of war might change, but it'll always be there.

Relevant - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiYuq6Ac3a0

is Hell.

So probably not.

Ennui is the real Hell.

P1) If people exist they can get on with each other
P2) This hasn't happened in many places
P3) People have different environments to adapt to and survive in
C) War is possible but not inevitable
Wars can occasionally be a good thing (to overthrow a dictator), but in the main (evidence see any history book) it is harmful.
As long as there's lots of different cultures and religions with different economic situations Wars will happen, once these are unified they might stop.


See Buddhism Four noble truths.

Now, assuming that no crackpot leaders or Imperialists get control, could the world ever be free of all war in the future? I say no, but I'd like to hear other opinons too.

I would love to think it might be possible, but I know better.
Humans think in groups, and humans love to hate the groups they're not part of.
Unless we evolve a good bit further, we'll continue fighting wars just like our nearest relatives do...

No, because man will always find an excuse or reason to fight one another. It is something built into us. We like to think we are so much better than chimps, but we're not.

do you 'war is inevitable' lot think war could break out at any moment between france and england? why or why not?

Well yes, of course. A severe breach in diplomacy such as an embassy takeover or rogue military commander launching a missile or something similar can spark such an event.

ok, so it is conceivable. but does it seem at all likely?

do you 'war is inevitable' lot think war could break out at any moment between france and england? why or why not?

Well yes, of course. A severe breach in diplomacy such as an embassy takeover or rogue military commander launching a missile or something similar can spark such an event.

The world will never be free of war. Its sort of in our nature. We compete for dominance. Survival of the fittest. Yet we all are the same species right? Well, we have to fight for natural resources, living space, and technology. Of course many are idiots and start wars for predijudce and of the like. But even if people started no wars for personal hatred, then we'd all have to be nice and share everything or else just more fighting. Wish there was no war but there probably always will be.

Really many of our wars (well all US wars)up until the the Gulf War from WWI on are because of WWI. Syupidity. One minor political assassination cause WWI, people dissaftisfied with the results of WWI start WWII, whicch brings the USSR to become a superpower causing the Cold War which cause The Korean War and The Vietnam War. See one single act stupidity leads to all this bloodshed. Its a real pity.

Although pie wars are fun!:D

ok, so it is conceivable. but does it seem at all likely?

No, of course not. In the current climate of global affairs, armed conflict between any of the North American or Western European powers is extremely unlikely.

But it is more likely than them againts Israel, is it not?;)

LOL. That means you must kill yourself too!

Now, assuming that no crackpot leaders or Imperialists get control, could the world ever be free of all war in the future? I say no, but I'd like to hear other opinons too.

yes. it's possible.

first you have to wipe out all creatures who have even the basic understanding of war down to the point of extinction.

then there will be no wars. fights for survival? yes, wars? no.

Click Stand;13379971']How else are we going to control the population issues?
Disease.
Cultural adaptation to carrying capacity.
Responsible parenting.
Social reinforcement of population control.
Rapture.
Occasional release of technology/concepts into limited review by less-than-educated peoples (i.e. Darwin Awards)
Alien abduction
Governmental abduction
Bush and people like him in otherwise democratic-leaning countries forcing sensible and rational people to move out to other areas of the world ...

On war itself:
Whether just or not, war will always exist as a means of competition (for resources, ideology, etc.). I've toyed with the idea that this may be because we, as animals, do not have a clear predator (i.e. we are at the top of the food chain) and therefore serve as our own predators. Reductio ad absurdum would then imply that peace is the abnormal condition of man and war is a perfectly natural act. Thoughts?

On war breaking out any moment between England and France (or any other particular pair of states):
I think the "war is inevitable" crowd, I among them, would reply that just because war is inevitable, doesn't mean that it can occur spontaneously given any two states. But as a human activity, it isn't something we'll be able to get rid of. And I have the entirety of human existence as evidence to support my theory.

On other methods of population control:
Disease? Besides talking about something of cataclysmic proportions, it doesn't really work. Even the Black Plague, which managed to kill off anywhere between 30% and 60% of the European population, barely curbed growth.
Cultural adaptation? Absolutely no evidence of this - population level stabilization is directly linked to the technological and economic wellbeing of a society and has absolutely no correlation to a current population level. Look at Japanese populations (which have actually been declining) vs. those found in Bangladesh (which remain extraordinarily high).
Responsible parenting? Hasn't worked - China's "one child" policy did two things: 1) created an underground culture of hidden children and 2) created a surplus of males because infant daughters were killed off in the hopes that a son would be born instead. Of course, this only occurred in places where people even bothered to follow Chinese law.
Social reinforcement of population control? See above.
Darwinian nightmares? American society (I can't really speak for others) has tried to insulate people in hermetic safety bubbles for years. Just look at a cup of McDonald's coffee ("Warning. Contents may be hot." - Duh!) Too many people would have to try too hard to die stupidly for this to have an influence.
As for that last one, forcing "sensibility" and "rationality" are oxymoronic expressions. That one made the least amount of sense of your entire post.

On 1984:
Read it thoroughly multiple times. To UNITIHU, I ask that you substantiate. I don't see the correlation.

As for that last one, forcing "sensibility" and "rationality" are oxymoronic expressions. That one made the least amount of sense of your entire post. For thinking yourself so clever, the obvious tends to slip right past you.
You should consider erasing your post for everything dedicated to me.
Rapture
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13382636&postcount=69
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gif

You want to take me seriously? Take this to heart:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13382634&postcount=3157

For thinking yourself so clever, the obvious tends to slip right past you.
You should consider erasing your post for everything dedicated to me.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13382636&postcount=69
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gif

You want to take me seriously? Take this to heart:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13382634&postcount=3157

Oh, I'm sorry. Did I fail to stoop to your level of unsubstantiated debate? I apologize. Here's what I meant to post:

"War is bad and we all should just try to get along. Yeah!"

Is that unintelligent enough for you to understand?

What is it good for? Population control.

Pleasure

(NO! Not the SEXUAL one!)

Oh, I'm sorry. Did I fail to stoop to your level of unsubstantiated debate? I apologize. Here's what I meant to post:

"War is bad and we all should just try to get along. Yeah!"

Is that unintelligent enough for you to understand?Coming from someone who doesn't know what the word "Rapture" implies and means, i think you've got yourself an echo there.
Sounds like you're wounded.
Sounds, also, like you think that my reason for posting is at your behest.
Phail. Scuttle somewhere else before you humiliate yourself further.

History is war peirced by periods of short peace. I don't think that is going to change soon.

History is war peirced by periods of short peace. I don't think that is going to change soon.

Pretty true, that.

War is war and hell is hell. Of the two, war is worse. Hell has no casualties.

-Roughly taken from M.A.S.H.

History is war peirced by periods of short peace. I don't think that is going to change soon.
i do. and that is the story told by pet historians of governments and idiologs, not most of the history lived by real people.

it is the history told in schools because governments allow little else, and because it gives convienient dates students can be test and thus brainwashed on.

hierarchies do have a vested interest in romantacizing the poor slobs who get conned into defending their inequities with thier killing and dying lives.

yes we are not better the chimps. we don't have to be. we are not better then the great cats either. and they, do not, engauge in collective, organized, warfare.

=^^=
.../\...

I agree at you (Ravea's post)

Maybe, if there is no thing that make us warring (values, honour, resources, etc), there may be no history. Because there is no thing interesting at the past.

MAYBE.

Just an other crazy ideas...

I agree at you (Ravea's post)

Maybe, if there is no thing that make us warring (values, honour, resources, etc), there may be no history. Because there is no thing interesting at the past.

MAYBE.

Just an other crazy ideas...

there's a hell of a lot more interesting in the past then wars or even governments, like the invention of acorn soup, windmills, indoor plumbing, refrigerators, ball bearings and intigrated circuits. heirarchies with a vested intrest in militance and the inequities thereof, just don't want us thinking in those terms.

=^^=
.../\...

i do. and that is the story told by pet historians of governments and idiologs, not most of the history lived by real people.

it is the history told in schools because governments allow little else, and because it gives convienient dates students can be test and thus brainwashed on.

hierarchies do have a vested interest in romantacizing the poor slobs who get conned into defending their inequities with thier killing and dying lives.

yes we are not better the chimps. we don't have to be. we are not better then the great cats either. and they, do not, engauge in collective, organized, warfare.

=^^=
.../\...

Maybe you have a point, but i think it's part of the governments attempts to reduce wars, by teaching us about the past ones, to avoid future ones, it's not as simple as changing the thermostat in your house to make it warmer or colder, Education itself isn't the only thing that is made to make or stop war, in most cases it tries to stop it.
I think not in my lifetime but in the future there will be alot less wars.