Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Br Cornelius

War is not inevitable

55 posts in this topic

Profit incentive is the reason for so much advancement in our world. In saying that, I'm also not sure that advancement is morally superior to stagnation. I read in a journal that world knowledge has more than doubled since the 1970s. Societal advancement and its wonderful products and services may ultimately prove catastrophically worse than living off the land like the the Amish. Much of the technological advancement that makes our worlds so dramatically better comes from the "survival of the fittest" games mankind plays on itself. World War 2 for example. Look at the massive gains in technology made between 1939-1945. Who was it that said "Necessity is the mother of invention" is right. Non-capitalistic systems don't have incentive to profit (produce, trade, and consume) but they do nothing to remove the incentives to violence. War becomes commercialized like it has in US foreign policy over the past 10 years.

I'm not game for a protracted discussion about economic models here. Not without the calculus and the research behind them at least.

But I will pose a take home question: Do we accept war as a morally acceptable form of economic stimulus (Keynesianism?), or population control (environmentalism?)?

War is a consequence of overexploitation. It requires the moral acceptance of overexploitation as a justifiable means of conducting society to accept that war is a justifiable means to an end. It is not.

Competition is not the only pathway to innovation - the most dynamic area of knowledge advancement at the moment is in the public commons field which is all about cooperation. Take the example of Linux - an entirely cooperative project which has produced results far superior to Windows and OSX (which is a derivative of Linux sold for profit). There is no imperative to indulge in war/competition to sustain innovation, innovation is the product of fertile minds who see a public need - it is a tragedy that most innovative minds are diverted into projects of War when they could be solving real public needs.

Advancement of knowledge is always most rapid when information is shared in a spirit of cooperation rather than been horded for commercial reasons.

It is a myth that we prosper by some neoDarwinist survival of the fittest - it is simply propeganda of the current victors in the war of ideologies - there is nothing Platonic about the inevitability of this outcome - we have choices.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If having enough was enough to prevent violence/war, then we'd see
those in poverty,
who get
just enough
not turning to violence or crime. Gangs form regardless of the financial situations. War is not just economic, it it cultural and societal. And has 9,999 other causes, like I said earlier.

War can have other causes , true enough, but economics has got to be the Primary cause? .. what would be the primary reason that "those in poverty" who "get just enough" would turn to violence or form gangs ? ... to get MORE?

Economically , war can be not only about taking from 'outsiders' but about taking from within? Wars are expensive and many people get rich by supplying war's needs. .. which is another powerful incentive to make war•

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I will pose a take home question: Do we accept war as a morally acceptable form of economic stimulus (Keynesianism?), or population control (environmentalism?)?

Yes. And that would go for plague and famine too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

War can have other causes , true enough, but economics has got to be the Primary cause? .. what would be the primary reason that "those in poverty" who "get just enough" would turn to violence or form gangs ? ... to get MORE?

Economically , war can be not only about taking from 'outsiders' but about taking from within? Wars are expensive and many people get rich by supplying war's needs. .. which is another powerful incentive to make war•

Or, as U2 put it, gold is the reason for the wars we wage.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

War can have other causes , true enough, but economics has got to be the Primary cause? .. what would be the primary reason that "those in poverty" who "get just enough" would turn to violence or form gangs ? ... to get MORE?

Economically , war can be not only about taking from 'outsiders' but about taking from within? Wars are expensive and many people get rich by supplying war's needs. .. which is another powerful incentive to make war•

What was the reason for WW1? The Korean War? Vietnam War? American Civil War? Afghanistan? Even WW2 was more about fulfilment of treatys then it was about resources. Most of these were driven by pride, arrogance and desire for power, not greed.

Economics certainly factors in, but it is only a fragment, not a majority of the reason most wars are fought.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the reason for WW1? The Korean War? Vietnam War? American Civil War? Afghanistan? Even WW2 was more about fulfilment of treatys then it was about resources. Most of these were driven by pride, arrogance and desire for power, not greed.

Economics certainly factors in, but it is only a fragment, not a majority of the reason most wars are fought.

Ultimately all those wars were extremely profitable for there banking backers and I think this was the main motivation behind most of them. The fact that they found political fall guys is the dressing. If there was no room for profit it is unlikely that they would have happened.

Bankers can be found financing both parties in any conflict.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimately all those wars were extremely profitable for there banking backers and I think this was the main motivation behind most of them. The fact that they found political fall guys is the dressing. If there was no room for profit it is unlikely that they would have happened.

Bankers can be found financing both parties in any conflict.

Br Cornelius

So you're going to go with Conspiricy Theory A? Fine....

I have a tiger talisman to sell to you. It keeps away tigers. Honestly... You don't see any tigers around do you?

The American Civil war was not about Slavery, but about selling rifles???

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. The war was about slavery and the rifle makers were a necessity. The rifle makers reaped massive rewards but that wasn't the reason for going to war. Most of America actually didn't care for slavery. I know it seems like a seedy business today, and it probably is, but militaries need weapon makers and innovators and it's only fitting that weapon makers charge an arm and a leg to allow you to remove somebody else's. It's kind of a limited market and limited markets that produce quality always make out big.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

War is a racket.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

War is a consequence of overexploitation. It requires the moral acceptance of overexploitation as a justifiable means of conducting society to accept that war is a justifiable means to an end. It is not.

Competition is not the only pathway to innovation - the most dynamic area of knowledge advancement at the moment is in the public commons field which is all about cooperation. Take the example of Linux - an entirely cooperative project which has produced results far superior to Windows and OSX (which is a derivative of Linux sold for profit). There is no imperative to indulge in war/competition to sustain innovation, innovation is the product of fertile minds who see a public need - it is a tragedy that most innovative minds are diverted into projects of War when they could be solving real public needs.

Advancement of knowledge is always most rapid when information is shared in a spirit of cooperation rather than been horded for commercial reasons.

It is a myth that we prosper by some neoDarwinist survival of the fittest - it is simply propeganda of the current victors in the war of ideologies - there is nothing Platonic about the inevitability of this outcome - we have choices.

Br Cornelius

War is not a justified means to an end. And so long as governments take their nations to war, we must oppose governments because they are unjust. Let the people decide.

Wars are fought over resources. Resources typically include land, power, profit, prestige, legal entitlements, and more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're going to go with Conspiricy Theory A? Fine....

I have a tiger talisman to sell to you. It keeps away tigers. Honestly... You don't see any tigers around do you?

The American Civil war was not about Slavery, but about selling rifles???

Not conspiracy theory - well documented facts. Banks always profit from wars and always finance both sides because its the most profitable business in town. I repeat - if war wasn't profitable it wouldn't happen.

Br Cornelius

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

War is not a justified means to an end. And so long as governments take their nations to war, we must oppose governments because they are unjust. Let the people decide.

Wars are fought over resources. Resources typically include land, power, profit, prestige, legal entitlements, and more.

I ask you to go live in a country without a functional government to realise the fallacy of your position - I suggest Somalia would make a good educational experience.

Governments are not evil - only certain governments.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whats the point of this discussion? the only solution is some coked up fairy tale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whats the point of this discussion? the only solution is some coked up fairy tale

The point is that if people aren't made aware of the issues which drive them to send their sons and daughters to war - we will continue to have more pointless wars.

Peace is an option we can choose to take if we become aware.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. The war was about slavery and the rifle makers were a necessity. The rifle makers reaped massive rewards but that wasn't the reason for going to war. Most of America actually didn't care for slavery. I know it seems like a seedy business today, and it probably is, but militaries need weapon makers and innovators and it's only fitting that weapon makers charge an arm and a leg to allow you to remove somebody else's. It's kind of a limited market and limited markets that produce quality always make out big.

... or maybe not so much? I think it was probably, really, more about economic control of the south.

"Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that, by the accession of a Republican administration, their peace and personal security are to be endangered I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it now exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so!" Abraham Lincoln

Even after the outbreak of the war in 1861, Lincoln confirmed his previous stand. He said: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all of the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." Abraham Lincoln

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ask you to go live in a country without a functional government to realise the fallacy of your position - I suggest Somalia would make a good educational experience.

Governments are not evil - only certain governments.

Br Cornelius

Humanity isn't evil either, only certain individuals. Tyranny and liberty are locked in perpetual conflict. Move too far to either fringe and catastrophe can develop. That said, I would prefer to err on the side of liberty when considering the necessity of government. History is my guide in having that preference.

Massive abuse of power in the hands of the few and the powerful (kings and conquerors) are a menace to our capacity to live free. I'll side with the freedom fighters who want to free people for their own good, over the tyrants who want to control people for their own good.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

War isn't inevitable, provided the institutions that take us to war aren't too powerful. There must be checks and balances on power. Power should be kept disparate rather than centralized, small to the point of being large enough, and closer to the people rather than disconnected by thousands of miles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... or maybe not so much? I think it was probably, really, more about economic control of the south.

"Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that, by the accession of a Republican administration, their peace and personal security are to be endangered I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it now exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so!" Abraham Lincoln

Even after the outbreak of the war in 1861, Lincoln confirmed his previous stand. He said: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all of the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." Abraham Lincoln

Whoa! My mind is blown! You've wrecked my view of Lincoln.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even after the outbreak of the war in 1861, Lincoln confirmed his previous stand. He said: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all of the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." Abraham Lincoln

On August 22, 1862, just a few weeks before signing the Proclamation and after he had already discussed a draft of it with his cabinet in July, he wrote a letter in response to an editorial by Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune which had urged complete abolition. Lincoln differentiates between "my view of official duty"—that is, what he can do in his official capacity as President—and his personal views. Officially he must save the Union above all else; personally he wanted to free all the slaves:

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them.
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it

and that's exactly what he did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humanity isn't evil either, only certain individuals. Tyranny and liberty are locked in perpetual conflict. Move too far to either fringe and catastrophe can develop. That said, I would prefer to err on the side of liberty when considering the necessity of government. History is my guide in having that preference.

Massive abuse of power in the hands of the few and the powerful (kings and conquerors) are a menace to our capacity to live free. I'll side with the freedom fighters who want to free people for their own good, over the tyrants who want to control people for their own good.

I disagree with this. Even the best person has a nature apt to doing wrong. Not all people are evil, of course, but enough have so little restraint that warfare is inevitable. The M.E. Palestinian Israeli conflict is a perfect example. The numbers of individuals on either side who are compelled to kill are small. But the rest of the populations are roused up by this and the conflict cannot die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with this. Even the best person has a nature apt to doing wrong. Not all people are evil, of course, but enough have so little restraint that warfare is inevitable. The M.E. Palestinian Israeli conflict is a perfect example. The numbers of individuals on either side who are compelled to kill are small. But the rest of the populations are roused up by this and the conflict cannot die.

Depends on what you call Evil. Are kids that swipe candy from the bulk food section evil? They are stealing... theives, right? I think there is a lot of inbetween area... Grey area... between Pure Good and Total Evil.

Even murders, like the kid that just shot up the Portland mall yesterday, are probably not evil, they are simply stupid and confused and emotionally crazed. True evil is relatively rare, in my Honest opinon.

I would agree though that enough exist and enough have power that war will always exist.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on what you call Evil. Are kids that swipe candy from the bulk food section evil? They are stealing... theives, right? I think there is a lot of inbetween area... Grey area... between Pure Good and Total Evil.

Even murders, like the kid that just shot up the Portland mall yesterday, are probably not evil, they are simply stupid and confused and emotionally crazed. True evil is relatively rare, in my Honest opinon.

I would agree though that enough exist and enough have power that war will always exist.

Only if that power is vested in government.

There's an inherent conflict of interest in opposing war and supporting the source of war (government) at the same time. Evil is a neutral entity in this discussion neither with us or against us when the essence of warfare can transcend mere evil, when some wars are fought in self defense or for self preservation that isn't evil. Some people are evil and start wars. But they must do this with centralized organized governing power. From a practical standpoint, civil action keeping government power in check is the best way to prevent war. If all of humanity did this, war would be done and over with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to realise that some people have a fundamental belief in the concept of original sin so have a predisposition to believe in evil as an external force drawing us to do wrong. Personally I think thats BS.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on what you call Evil. Are kids that swipe candy from the bulk food section evil? They are stealing... theives, right? I think there is a lot of inbetween area... Grey area... between Pure Good and Total Evil.

Even murders, like the kid that just shot up the Portland mall yesterday, are probably not evil, they are simply stupid and confused and emotionally crazed. True evil is relatively rare, in my Honest opinon.

I would agree though that enough exist and enough have power that war will always exist.

Yes, I make a distinction between real evil and the garden variety of the rest of us that "just want our own way" but it only takes a few when the rest of us can't or won't stand against them.

And BC: I think the inherent nature of mankind to do wrong instead of right has been proven so thoroughly over our history that to deny it's reality is preposterous. Those who do are, IMO, either in denial or they want to assign some, as you put it -"external" motivator to it. I believe it comes from within us. Ask anyone who's watched a child in their "terrible twos". Self will run riot is what it's about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.