hows this for a mind fucking wars happen thats all i mean seriously, we are a species that has been given the gift of inteligence, and wars occur because of it. HOW FUCKED UP IS THAT!?!?!?! i can understand that some people think someone should join a war to stop a war, but how the fuck did that war start in the first place? mass killing- of living things against other living things- in the same species- over things like power and money and land WHAT IS WRONG WITH US!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??! im not even going to get into the degree we put into wars, or the idea that those in the military are hailed as the bravest, or the budget for wars, or the wars done for racist or religious reasons, or the idea that it is okay to kill people from another country to save the ones in your own, or any of the other hundreds of complicated fucked up things also involved in wars. seriously, we rationalize it and rationalize it until its almost a good things, when it is clearly the worst possible thing that could ever occur MASS KILLING!!!! WTF!!!!!!
It would probably be very bleak and uninteresting. I imagine there wouldn't be a human race... something like what you see in the Smurfs or Carebears, but with lizards.
What is nice having to pay $100 for a pair of jeans. We didnt need war to make our lives great. WE need love. I thought that if someone killed someone they went to prison. Well Bush seems to remind me of Charles Manson, he just gets people to carry out his dirty work. Fuck Bush. Peace&Love
the idea that humans would have died out if war did not exist is a rediculious concept. Isolated tribes of human developed for thousands of wars without war. http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/10/27/dwarf.cavewoman.ap/index.html The lack of technology would not be terrible, as it always comes with a price, every benefit of technology has a detriminal effect. Anyone can live without technology, and happily. Technology would develope anyway, just slower. the ends do not come close to justifying the means
I can't argue that war is always necessary or beneficial, but I can argue that our lives have been drastically improved because of it. I am thankful for the terrible sacrifices that millions of men and women have made for the benefit of our existence. With Remembrance Day approaching soon, I suggest that anyone who reads this follows suit. And remember their message: Never again
War comes down to limited resources. Imagine two tribes live in an area and get along peaceably, but both tribes grow in population. Eventually, there isn't enough food to support the people of both tribes, so they fight over territory. These tribal raids are the first wars, and are justifiable in some ways because it's a life or death situation: both sides need the food. When people began living in city-states, it was a similar thing, growing cities need more land to feed their inhabitants, eventually the edges meet and territorial disputes arise. But somewhere along the line it got to be about greed. Maybe two cities are getting along fine, but the king in charge of one city sees all that land the other city owns creating a lot of wealth. Thus, war ceases to be about real necessary things (territory for food/resources needed to live) and more about leaders corrupted by greed. Clearly it's more complex than this but this is how I see it. Today's wars are overblown, often caused by differing ideology (communism vs. capitalism, Christians vs. Muslims, race vs race, etc...) or, again, greed. Neither of these kinds of wars are justifiable. The Somolians fighting to get food in the drought, that is justifiable. Sudanese killing blacks in Darfur because they're black, this is not justifiable. Given the large numbers of lives at stake nowadays-- really, in the last few thousand years (think of the massive armies of Rome, or Napoleon, etc), and especially, in the last 100 years (machine guns, missles, bombs, nukes, chemical and biological weapons...)-- war is something that is too dangerous for everyone to even be considered. Unfortunately greed, arrogance, and bigotry gets the better of many of us and leads us to commit the unspeakable.
From the site: The First World War was perhaps the key event of the twentieth century. It transformed the political map of Europe and signalled a shift in power away from Europe towards the United States. Tragically its resolution also set the scene for an even greater The human cost was huge. Over 9 million servicemen died. More were injured – many of them left permanently disabled. The violence and disruption of the war also led to the deaths of millions of civilians and the large-scale destruction of property and land. The war also impacted on the fields of science, technology and medicine. On an organisational level, many of the complex systems set up to administer human and material resources were successfully incorporated into post-war civilian life. On a technological level, while some innovation did emerge, the war greatly accelerated and industrialised a number of technologies already in existence. Advances in aviation, transport and specific medical treatments were among the positive legacies that emerged from the catastrophe.
Depends on your idea of progress. If progress to you is even larger, scarier war, pollution and the rape of the natural world, exploding populations, etc...then yes, we have certainly progressed. I don't see things that way. We haven't solved any real problems in society and seem to be creating even more as we go along.
How can you expect a perfect world? We're only human after all. I see progress in medicine, communications, transportation and societal values among numerous other fields. Can you not even recognize the progress we have made as a species since the Cold War? WWI? The Industrial Revolution? Our progression will lead us further into the future to the point where we are capable of solving many of the problems you outlined above. Although, solving these problems could quite possibly lead to the formations of new ones, but we can deal with those when they emerge. A century ago, many of the problems you outlined were not significant. Today they are, and tomorrow they will be solved (not really tomorrow, but sometime within the next century). That is the power of the creative ingenuity of our human race. I would prefer that these technological advancements could come from a trigger other than war, but that's where the necessity and financing comes from for such endeavours.
that's what iv been comtemplating for the past 4 years of my life. not so much to find a perfect world but to eleminate the most greivious of events, war, famine, genocide, things like that. I dont beleive that we have many dissagreements, we are just describing different things. Im describing the horrible parts of war, you are describing the benefits of it, but you would not want wars to occur for technology to advance (if i am interpretting your words correctly) but rather you wish to value the benefits it has given to us. The only difference in ideology i see is that you take a pessimistic point of veiw of human nature, while mine is more optimistic.
