Is war just the way we are?

[old.Tohtori]

Hi, i'm old.tohtori and you might remember me from such threads as "driving and texting" and "[insert religious thread name]".

First off, i just want to let everyone know that this thread topic will most likely involve several points of views and most likely from several individuals. This will ofcourse eventually, as this is the internet, cause friction and clashing opinions.

As we all know, these kind of events usually lead to several pages of arguing, with most likely the mention of nazi germany in first few pages and even have the possibility of it turning into yet another religion bashing and/or toht bashing fest.

So to alleviate the eventual meltdown, i suggest that anyone who feels i state opinions to start fights, arguments, or thinks that i just do X to cause Y and/or Z to leave this thread now and never return. If you're however interested in putting forward your opinion into the cesspool of internet discussion, with the risk of someone twisting your view, or just plain call you a dickwad, feel free to do so. We'll wait a moment for the people who might have "issues" with any of the aformentioned things, and me, to leave now.

...

......all gone? Good. Don't say i didn't warn you

-----

Now, if we look at this planet, from animal to animal, every single thing from microbes to humans is god-damn near to gore as it can get. Animals killing animals, bacteria trying to make killers sneeze and humans, due to several accidents that scientists call "evolution", are at the top of the game of "Who kills who first".

War as we know it, advances technology, no question about it. It also thins the herd and keeps the powerful in charge. Hippoies on the other hand would want world peace and all that lovey crap.

The question today is simple; are we simply a war loving species, as akin to the WHOLE planet, and is worldpeace a wrong thing to aspire for?

We love war. We watch war in movies, we kill eachother in wars, we play games to simulate killing eachother in wars, or even on a personal level. Most entertainment, from books to 3D poobreak HDTV bluray videos is about killing sh*t.

If we were a species in a game, we'd be the ones the klingons talk about as "Those crazy f*cking warrior types.". We evolved to it, we're good at it, so why in the name of all that is gorey should we stop and hug eachother?

I think humans should embrace it. Start training people in the art of war even earlier, add war into the curriculum, add a few classes on "art of war" and so on. If we're doing it, and we've been doing it and will do for a long time to come, it's worth doing right! Right?

I think that's enough to get the discussion going, will ofcourse put forward more opinions as things progress.

 

[Job]

George Carlin

 

[Raven]

Pretty much. We are programmed to want to spread our seed and to protect and grow our society.

Just a shame that society isn't global.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Pretty much. We are programmed to want to spread our seed and to protect and grow our society.

Just a shame that society isn't global.

Aye, and here's a thought that's -really- popular when i mention it in bar discussions;

Hitler had a good idea in world domination.

In tiself, bad, no, hisssss. But if you think about it, if someone invaded the whole freakin planet and ruled over it, human race advancement would skyrocket.

Sure, we'd have a couple of billion dead and i'd most likely get shot for having diabetes, but hey, can't have it all

In a anuthsell; to get global peace that works, we need an outside enemy to fight 'cause we sure do love a fight.

We're only fighting eachother 'cause there's nothing else to do.

 

[Thorwyn]

In tiself, bad, no, hisssss. But if you think about it, if someone invaded the whole freakin planet and ruled over it, human race advancement would skyrocket.

I doubt that, because in that scenario, people would have a lack of competition, which is one of the key elements of development and advancement.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I doubt that, because in that scenario, people would have a lack of competition, which is one of the key elements of development and advancement.

Good point and it's hard to calculate which would benefit more; competitive arms race or global unification of all sources under one rule

It would have to be a society, i think, where the lack of progress results in strong punishment.

Also food, living, weekend enjoyment and/or entertainment for breaks and such should be free to remove distractions like that. Remove stres of paying bills so to say.

Money would have to become obsolete, completely. On one rule that could be achieved.

Man...i want to design a single rule world

Or maybe two side world? Yes, that would work. Stronger resource controls, with still the competitive aspect and war(training if nothing else) to push advancements!

 

[Levin]

We need a Zerg to fight, so we can get an Arcturus Mengsk! ^^

 

[old.Tohtori]

We need a Zerg to fight, so we can get an Arcturus Mengsk! ^^

Screw Arcturus, we need zerg so i can finally get in bed with the queen of blades.

Hoooooooooot!

Kerrigan is nice too, but QoB is just überhot.

So are succubus in WoW.

...i think i have a thing for evil demonic women.

 

[aika]

its called survival of the fittest for a reason

 

[old.Tohtori]

its called survival of the fittest for a reason

Not sure but i don't think that applies to war. Think it was meant as "the thing that fits best into any given enviroment, survives the longest."

Bullets kind fo remove the fitting part

 

[Thorwyn]

Not really, because bullets are just an expansion of the "fittest" part. Physically stronger people kill weaker people, so weaker people have to develop a strategy to counter the stronger part. The result is armour and weapons. Reduced to the basics, it´s all a matter of survival of the fittest.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yes but isn't the concept of "survival of the fittest" also apply to traits beyond "strong win over weak"?

Like surviving without water, basic living, etc?

Stronger doesn't necessarily equal fittest for a given enviroment afterall.

 

[Thorwyn]

By the way... one thought on your initial statement:
I don´t think that people love war. Or killing. Or violence. Sure, it´s a daily feature and obviously we haven´t passed the stage of being violent creatures as of yet.
However, my theory is that - instead of war - we like to play. We like to compete, we like to simulate conflicts. Winning or losing, that´s what it´s all about, but with a save/load button... so to speak. It´s one of those ancient instincts that we´re carrying around with us. We don´t really want to fight, we want to prepare ourselves, practice for that ultimate fight and experience the fun of winning. I think that´s a difference. Small one maybe, but still important IMO.

 

[Thorwyn]

Like surviving without water, basic living, etc?

Stronger doesn't necessarily equal fittest for a given enviroment afterall.

First off, survival of the fittest covers the ability to get the ressouces you need to survive (i.e. kill your competitor who want´s to drink from YOUR water). Once you managed to do that, you can start worrying about your ability to survive without competition. Fortunately, the ability to defeat your opponents usually also helps with the latter (i.e. of you can kill an enemy, you can also kill an animal, getting you food and fur and stuff you need to survive.)

 

[Angrist]

Survival of the fittest is about surviving in the enviroment you live in and adapting when/if it changes.


Mr Lovecraft once wrote about war being human nature in one of his essays, i tend to agree with the old geezer.


Why any sane human being can believe in the possibility of universal peace is more than the conservative can fathom. The essential pugnacity and treachery of mankind is only too evident; and that every nation, even though pledged, would actually abolish means of warfare is absolutely unthinkable.
Should the entire civilized world agree simultaneously to disarm, one or more nations would undoubtedly retain secret armaments and at the proper time take advantage of their more altruistic and less astute contemporaries in a wild career of conquest against unarmed victims.
To say that higher culture would reason away the causes of war is complete idiocy. Germany, generally conceded to have been the world's most philosophical and intellectual nation, has achieved an equal fame in martial cruelty and bestiality.
No country is, or can ever be, "above" warfare, until the basic impulses of the human animal shall have miraculously changed.

 

[PLightstar]

I think you are right on many points, but I think we are more built around conflict and competitiveness rather than straight out war. I was thinking how on the Total War games I never settle for peace, I get to a size I can comfortably defend myself against anybody and have enough resources that I don't have to invade anyone. But in the end I end up conquering the entire map until nothing but me remains for no reason but to win every bit of land (I know its strange analogy but I think it works for our race as a whole). The British Empire was the only time the planet came close to one collective government. Even if we did have one world order and conflicts Trade/Land etc are on a 'peaceful' level I still think people will still have conflicts and maybe we would look into space to create these conflicts as Space Stations/Colonies (sounds a bit like Gundam) get built and want independence.

 

[old.Tohtori]

By the way... one thought on your initial statement:
I don´t think that people love war. Or killing. Or violence. Sure, it´s a daily feature and obviously we haven´t passed the stage of being violent creatures as of yet.
However, my theory is that - instead of war - we like to play. We like to compete, we like to simulate conflicts. Winning or losing, that´s what it´s all about, but with a save/load button... so to speak. It´s one of those ancient instincts that we´re carrying around with us. We don´t really want to fight, we want to prepare ourselves, practice for that ultimate fight and experience the fun of winning. I think that´s a difference. Small one maybe, but still important IMO.

Interesting thought on it and could be right. "Would you like to play a game" fits i believe

First off, survival of the fittest covers the ability to get the ressouces you need to survive (i.e. kill your competitor who want´s to drink from YOUR water). Once you managed to do that, you can start worrying about your ability to survive without competition. Fortunately, the ability to defeat your opponents usually also helps with the latter (i.e. of you can kill an enemy, you can also kill an animal, getting you food and fur and stuff you need to survive.)

You can also convince your opponent to live with you and so on, so violence doesn't necessarily come into survival of the fittest. Even if violence and conflict is the way we were built and it is the easy answer to anything.

I think you are right on many points, but I think we are more built around conflict and competitiveness rather than straight out war. I was thinking how on the Total War games I never settle for peace, I get to a size I can comfortably defend myself against anybody and have enough resources that I don't have to invade anyone. But in the end I end up conquering the entire map until nothing but me remains for no reason but to win every bit of land (I know its strange analogy but I think it works for our race as a whole). The British Empire was the only time the planet came close to one collective government. Even if we did have one world order and conflicts Trade/Land etc are on a 'peaceful' level I still think people will still have conflicts and maybe we would look into space to create these conflicts as Space Stations/Colonies (sounds a bit like Gundam) get built and want independence.

Yeah war was possibly the ultimatum of the point. Violence, conflict, combat, competition, winning etc. Was is the pinnacle of competition afterall.

 

[Killswitch]

The accumulation of bullets/guns/tanks/nukes are a modern day extension of tribalism. Define a boundary that includes "us" and then acquire the tools to defend it against "them". When "they" get too close, "we" scare them off by making loud noised and killing a few thousand of 'em.

It's worth noting that a "symmetric" war is almost impossible nowadays...anything like Allies vs. Axis would last about 20 minutes before every major city was destroyed and/or huge swathes of populated land were turned into glass.

The current war du jour is "asymmetric" where the little guy pisses off the big guy no end, but can't do any serious damage to him. Think Vietnam...the only reason US troops died in large numbers is because they went to Vietnam and fought disciplined insurgents IN A FUCKING JUNGLE. When the insurgents didn't want to fight, they put on civilian clothes and went to the shop.

I don't think the conflict in Afghanistan is a war, any more than the War on Terror or the War on Drugs are real wars. It is a combination of PR exercise, pissing contest and ego-trip. Once we declared War On Terrorism we couldn't sit back and let let countries go around being all un-American. Don't you know it's dictatorships that cause Terrorism?!? The problem is, if people refuse to do as the US tells them, what are the options? Step back, lose face and look weak? Or take some tanks in and bomb those arrogant, terrorism-loving ragheads into the next millenium?!? Hell yeah!!

You'll notice a conspicuous lack of US aggression towards countries who have weapons more high-tech than 3 AK-47s and a large cache of wickedly sharp sticks. I don't see many tanks in North Korea or Iran, despite the fact they post an actual real threat to Western lives.

So...war is not universal, aggression is,

 

[ford prefect]

I would say that most wars these days take place not out of a need for war, but out of political ambition or to push a certain political agenda. I think if left to their own devices, most people would just get on with their lives and wouldn't give war much thought.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I would say that most wars these days take place not out of a need for war, but out of political ambition or to push a certain political agenda. I think if left to their own devices, most people would just get on with their lives and wouldn't give war much thought.

That is, until the world became "every man for himself". In that situation(post apocalypse for example), i think the true nature would come out and killing people(or even small scale war, skirmish, combat would become an every day occurance.

 

[ford prefect]

That is, until the world became "every man for himself". In that situation(post apocalypse for example), i think the true nature would come out and killing people(or even small scale war, skirmish, combat would become an every day occurance.

Maybe, maybe not. If you look at history - war has almost always been due to political pressure or pushed by a few eltiests such as monarchy ect. Most people in general where happy being farmers, blacksmiths or whatever. For the most part it was more of a case of the the average joe being pressured into fighting, nobles kicking them of their land or propoganda about the other side coming taking their land ect. That was especially true in most religous wars in europe at least.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Maybe, maybe not. If you look at history - war has almost always been due to political pressure or pushed by a few eltiests such as monarchy ect. Most people in general where happy being farmers, blacksmiths or whatever. For the most part it was more of a case of the the average joe being pressured into fighting, nobles kicking them of their land or propoganda about the other side coming taking their land ect. That was especially true in most religous wars in europe at least.

True, but what i meant is a total fall of society. At that point, survival, food, shelter, protection etc would become a key element.

People would ofcourse form camps, try to organise(if they had strong leaders or just similar motivations), but when resources were so limited, conflicts would become more of personal gain then political gain.

Then again, what i said earlier to Thorwyn about survival of the fittest not necessarily being of strongest fighter would also apply.

I think in a apocalyptic scenario, defense would become the most imortant aspect of life.

 

[Jiggs]

Hippos are actually quite violent.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Hippos are actually quite violent.

Every single thing on this planet is violent

From bacteria to giraffes, from lions to koalas. Evedry single existance on this damn globe will either try to f*ck you, kill you, or eat you.

And not necessarily in that order!

 

[Jiggs]

I'm just saying that because you said they want world peace.

They are widely considered to be one of the few most dangerous large animals in Africa.

From Wiki.

 

[old.Tohtori]

No no, hippoies. Not hippos. You know, fat hippies.

More flour power then flower power

Think i dodged that little typo...

 

[Huntingtons]

I doubt that, because in that scenario, people would have a lack of competition, which is one of the key elements of development and advancement.

to add to that, what was one of the main reasons for the first man on moon

 

[Thorwyn]

You can also convince your opponent to live with you and so on, so violence doesn't necessarily come into survival of the fittest. Even if violence and conflict is the way we were built and it is the easy answer to anything.

That´s a different and equally valid strategy (e.g.symbiosis). However, you must not forget that such a strategy requires a certain ammount of communication, understanding and cause-and-effect thinking. And given the fact that we evolved from ... well... animals, it´s unlikely that such a strategy would be very successfull to begin with.

 

[old.Tohtori]

That´s a different and equally valid strategy (e.g.symbiosis). However, you must not forget that such a strategy requires a certain ammount of communication, understanding and cause-and-effect thinking. And given the fact that we evolved from ... well... animals, it´s unlikely that such a strategy would be very successfull to begin with.

It worked for dogs(aka brave wolves)

 

[Jiggs]

No no, hippoies. Not hippos. You know, fat hippies.

More flour power then flower power

Think i dodged that little typo...