Seriously, why is the world so damn fucked up?
Like honestly how do people ever pervert stuff in their heads so bad that people end up dying over it?
I’m just wondering out loud, as sometimes reading about all the screwed up things in the world gets me really pissed/sad/depressed.
Are we closer now to peace than any generation before us?
[quote]Agressive Napkin wrote:
Seriously, why is the world so damn fucked up?
Like honestly how do people ever pervert stuff in their heads so bad that people end up dying over it?
I’m just wondering out loud, as sometimes reading about all the screwed up things in the world gets me really pissed/sad/depressed.
Are we closer now to peace than any generation before us?[/quote]
War like poverty, disease etc will always be with us.
Guys like the Buddha said all life is suffering. I’m not a Buddhist but he might have a point.
Life might be filled with suffering that no one can completely escape but at least we laugh a little along the way.
And heck a little evil and drama can sure make for a good story.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
War like poverty, disease etc will always be with us.[/quote]
For poverty and diseases, we’re heading in the right way. Being poor in 2007, at least in the west, is a lot easier than being poor in the 1400s anywhere.
A whole bunch of previously fatal diseases are now pretty much distant memories; I’m pretty sure we’ll get’em all (or close to it) eventually.
War is bit more problematic, because it too has made progress. Not in that we’re having less of them or are waging them better, but in the sense that as technology progresses, it becomes easier for smaller and smaller groups of people to kill large groups of people.
In medieval times, it was very hard for 1 individual to threaten many others. Nowadays, with explosives, a single individual can kill hundreds, even thousands of others. Extrapolating from that leads to the eventual situation where single people might be able to hold millions hostages (bio/chem weapon in major city, for example).
So while poverty and disease might always be with us, their influence on life is diminishing as time goes by. War, in the large sense of violence done to men by men, is heading in the opposite direction.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
War like poverty, disease etc will always be with us.
For poverty and diseases, we’re heading in the right way. Being poor in 2007, at least in the west, is a lot easier than being poor in the 1400s anywhere.
A whole bunch of previously fatal diseases are now pretty much distant memories; I’m pretty sure we’ll get’em all (or close to it) eventually.
War is bit more problematic, because it too has made progress. Not in that we’re having less of them or are waging them better, but in the sense that as technology progresses, it becomes easier for smaller and smaller groups of people to kill large groups of people.
In medieval times, it was very hard for 1 individual to threaten many others. Nowadays, with explosives, a single individual can kill hundreds, even thousands of others. Extrapolating from that leads to the eventual situation where single people might be able to hold millions hostages (bio/chem weapon in major city, for example).
So while poverty and disease might always be with us, their influence on life is diminishing as time goes by. War, in the large sense of violence done to men by men, is heading in the opposite direction.
[/quote]
Being poor now is probably easier then being rich in the 1400’s.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Being poor now is probably easier then being rich in the 1400’s.[/quote]
You’re right. I know that given the choice between being poor in the US or Canada now and being a blue blood aristocrat in the 1400’s, I’d pick poor and now.
[quote]pookie wrote:
War is bit more problematic, because it too has made progress. Not in that we’re having less of them or are waging them better, but in the sense that as technology progresses, it becomes easier for smaller and smaller groups of people to kill large groups of people.
[/quote]
The fact that nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons even exist and offer humans the option of such an acute and self inflicted cataclysm never ceases to amaze me. Such an amazing and terrifying accomplishment. Adds a bit of excitement to all the regional conflicts that spring up that somehow involve the big players.
Is world war three inevitable or we will survive the threat of our own potential? We all probably have an opinion but no one knows for sure.
[quote]Agressive Napkin wrote:
Seriously, why is the world so damn fucked up?
Like honestly how do people ever pervert stuff in their heads so bad that people end up dying over it? [/quote]
The way I see it, it comes down to ignorance, greed and intolerance. Non-issues get all exacerbated because of these components, and then lead to the scary stuff.
No doubt!
A system where the will of the people is properly represented will naturally choose peace over violent confrontation. In most countries, there is more oversight on the political classes (who are traditionally responsible for wars) than ever before.
In the grand scheme of things, earthlings are a lot more peaceful than before. With the exception of a certain afflicted region of the M.E. I believe we are heading towards a serious cooling down of the frequency and scale of armed conflicts.
This is due to the increasing role the Non-Aligned Movement plays on the international scene, recent democratizations, the working model of the E.U. inspiring Latin America, China’s choice of relative non-militarization, and most importantly, the impact the world’s public opinion is having in shaping global policy.
And we ain’t seen nothing yet…
Technology will end war. The earth population will be peacefully lobotomized, making them docile as sheep. Nanotechnicians are at work upon it now.
I don’t know if we want to totally eliminate war. Extreme situations cause evolution. We’ll become a stagnant civilisation without war. Maybe limit ourselves to regional wars that don’t use nukes or bio-weapons…kind of like what we have now.
Didn’t Hegel say: “War is the health of the State.” in The Philosophy of Right?
Follow the money trail.