Peaceful Cities

[Kalyyn]

I should hope no such thing ever happens to any people. Extended absence of conflict does some bad things to a society. First, they become complacent. Progress slows. Then they become decadent. People only want to consume, and not create. Finally, your society become universally apathetic, which is the worst thing any human can be. Society simply ceases to advance. And this doesn't take a thousand years. It takes a few generations.

[semaphore]

Extended absence of conflict does some bad things to a society. First, they become complacent. Progress slows. Then they become decadent. People only want to consume, and not create. Finally, your society become universally apathetic, which is the worst thing any human can be.

And your evidence for this is, what, the prosperity of Western civilisation since the end of the WWII?

It's an extremely warped view that doesn't stand up to logic anyway. Internal, non-violent conflicts drives progress and innovation much more than the destruction wrought by war. This idea is really just a version of the broken windows fallacy.

[Tokru]

Simple answer for th OP:

No.

[Kalyyn]

And your evidence for this is, what, the prosperity of Western civilisation since the end of the WWII?

It's an extremely warped view that doesn't stand up to logic anyway. Internal, non-violent conflicts drives progress and innovation much more than the destruction wrought by war. This idea is really just a version of the broken windows fallacy.

America has been in a perpetual state of global conflict since the beginning of the second world war, as has your Europe.

No, my best evidence is Japan, leading up to the forceful introduction of western culture by American Commodore Mathew Perry. The Japanese had, since the unification of Japan, lived in an isolated state of peace with no external conflict. They had no reason to compete, and no desire to advance their power. So our Mathew Perry pulls up with his handful of warships, and tells the Japanese that they are going to abide by his terms. They had fallen so far behind in the global arms race that he may as well come from outer space, for all it mattered.

They were so removed from external conflict that they were entirely unprepared when it forced itself upon them. They were just lucky that the source of that conflict was more interested in trade than conquest.

[Catta]

No war. Let's say the city was never besieged or occupied by hostile forces.

Doesn't mean it wasn't peaceful :P

I was given a tour of my university and were shown a hole in the hand rail near an amphitheater. We were told that during the war this was the SS's headquarters and that was the only shot - and it was accidental - fired on the university during the entire war.

[semaphore]

No, my best evidence is Japan, leading up to the forceful introduction of western culture by American Commodore Mathew Perry. The Japanese had, since the unification of Japan, lived in an isolated state of peace with no external conflict. They had no reason to compete, and no desire to advance their power. So our Mathew Perry pulls up with his handful of warships, and tells the Japanese that they are going to abide by his terms. They had fallen so far behind in the global arms race that he may as well come from outer space, for all it mattered.

If the best "evidence" you have is something this piss poor than you really don't have any case whatsoever. The Japanese were no more behind than any other non-European nation - nations that has been at war. There was no "global arms race", there was western military superiority. You are cherry picking data to make hasty generalisations because they suit your argument, even though it actually ignores reality. Your argument is quite simply fallacious and rather laughable.

They were so removed from external conflict that they were entirely unprepared when it forced itself upon them.

And here you're massively moving the goal post from "peace makes civilisation decay and ruins humans" to "they were unprepared for war". No shit. Of course they were unprepared for something that they weren't preparing for. That's completely besides the point. Where's your evidence that the Japanese became "decadent ... only want to consume, and not create ... universally apathetic"? Because that was your claim, and that's what's ridiculous.

The real fact is, of all the nations in the world, Japan is the only non-Western country to successfully modernise prior to the ~1990s or so. Most the others were certainly involved in many conflicts both internal and external - China being a good nearby example. And yet none of them were remotely close to as successful as Japan was. So why is the country that, according to you, should have been "decadent, only consume, universally apathetic" due to peace so much more successful?

Clearly your claims are refuted by your own "best evidence".

Infracted: Please post less belligerently.

[Shakadam]

There are no countries on earth that have been at peace for a 1000 years or more, so no.

However, if we disregard the fact that the country may have been at war, there are probably some cities that have never been occupied, besieged, or bombed.

Skara comes to mind, I'm fuzzy on the Swedish-Danish wars of old but I don't think it has ever been conquered? It's also more than 1000 years old so it fits that criteria.



Also, slightly related fun fact:

A new study has found that at various times the British have invaded almost 90 per cent of the countries around the globe.

The analysis of the histories of the almost 200 countries in the world found only 22 which have never experienced an invasion by the British.

Among this select group of nations are far-off destinations such as Guatemala, Tajikistan and the Marshall Islands, as well some slightly closer to home, such as Luxembourg.

'dem Brits. :O

[Kasierith]

Iceland might count, if you don't include infighting or sending troops/supplies to other nations. Greenland as well, and Greenland is probably a more solid choice.

[GreatOak]

There have been Native American cities that lasted that long but died out because of disease and subsequent instability, but not violence.

Cahokia comes to mind. It used to be the largest Native American city in North America for a long while, and functioned as a neutral trade/commerce hub. From wikipedia..

Cahokia was the most important center for the peoples known today as Mississippians. Their settlements ranged across what is now the Midwest, Eastern, and Southeastern United States. Cahokia was located in a strategic position near the confluence of the Mississippi, Missouri and Illinois rivers. It maintained trade links with communities as far away as the Great Lakes to the north and the Gulf Coast to the south, trading in such exotic items as copper, Mill Creek chert,[19] and whelk shells. Mill Creek chert, most notably, was used in the production of hoes, a high demand tool for farmers around Cahokia and other Mississippian centers. Cahokia's control of the manufacture and distribution of these hand tools was an important economic activity that allowed the city to thrive.[11] Mississippian culture pottery and stone tools in the Cahokian style were found at the Silvernale site near Red Wing, Minnesota, and materials and trade goods from Pennsylvania, the Gulf Coast and Lake Superior have been excavated at Cahokia.

At the high point of its development, Cahokia was the largest urban center north of the great Mesoamerican cities in Mexico. Although it was home to only about 1,000 people before c. 1050, its population grew explosively after that date. Archaeologists estimate the city's population at between 6,000 and 40,000 at its peak, with more people living in outlying farming villages that supplied the main urban center. In 1250, its population was about 15,000, comparable to that of London or Paris during the same period.[20]

If the highest population estimates are correct, Cahokia was larger than any subsequent city in the United States until the 1780s, when Philadelphia's population grew beyond 40,000.[21]

One of the major problems that large centers like Cahokia faced was keeping a steady supply of food, and waste disposal was also an issue, which made Cahokia an unhealthy place. Being that it was such an unhealthy place to live in, the town had to rely on social and political attractions to bring in a steady supply of new immigrants, otherwise the town's death rate would have left it abandoned earlier

---------- Post added 2013-02-07 at 06:31 PM ----------

The real fact is, of all the nations in the world, Japan is the only non-Western country to successfully modernise prior to the ~1990s or so. Most the others were certainly involved in many conflicts both internal and external - China being a good nearby example. And yet none of them were remotely close to as successful as Japan was. So why is the country that, according to you, should have been "decadent, only consume, universally apathetic" due to peace so much more successful?

Clearly your claims are refuted by your own "best evidence".

Not sure what you two are arguing about, but Japan had a "head start" so to speak from the Western Intervention. They were sort of forced to comply.

[Rukentuts]

Greenland is probably a more solid choice.

For the next few years maybe. *joke*

OT: What about stuff in Eastern or Northern Russia?

[Kasierith]

For the next few years maybe. *joke*

OT: What about stuff in Eastern or Northern Russia?

If we're looking at specific cities instead of countries overall, you could probably find thousands of cities that have never seen war.

[Rukentuts]

If we're looking at specific cities instead of countries overall, you could probably find thousands of cities that have never seen war.

Pretty sure countries would be a futile endeavor.

[GreatOak]

There should be a certain minimum standard required. I doubt 2000 year old Inuit Settlements with <1000 people count.

[Kasierith]

Pretty sure countries would be a futile endeavor.

Greenland counts if you don't include supplies during world war II, I believe.

[Rukentuts]

Greenland counts if you don't include supplies during world war II, I believe.

But it was (is?) under the control of the Danes, right?

But I doubt there was international conflict on their soil / ice.

[Kasierith]

But it was (is?) under the control of the Danes, right?

But I doubt there was international conflict on their soil / ice.

If it was, it was peaceful by the looks of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...ving_Greenland

[Rukentuts]

If it was, it was peaceful by the looks of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...ving_Greenland

I literally cannot think of anything else. Europe is self explanatory, Asia was nailed in WW2 if not sooner, Africa too, the Americas are rife with wars against natives and each other...even Australia and NZ have had conflicts too.

Any significant island country in the Pacific was in WW2 as well, ugh.

[Sam the Wiser]

I find peace between humans is impossible.

[bofedy]

im not sure but anglesey in walse has never been conquered and it has a couple of citys

[Kalyyn]

If the best "evidence" you have is something this piss poor than you really don't have any case whatsoever. The Japanese were no more behind than any other non-European nation - nations that has been at war. There was no "global arms race", there was western military superiority. You are cherry picking data to make hasty generalisations because they suit your argument, even though it actually ignores reality. Your argument is quite simply fallacious and rather laughable.


And here you're massively moving the goal post from "peace makes civilisation decay and ruins humans" to "they were unprepared for war". No shit. Of course they were unprepared for something that they weren't preparing for. That's completely besides the point. Where's your evidence that the Japanese became "decadent ... only want to consume, and not create ... universally apathetic"? Because that was your claim, and that's what's ridiculous.

The real fact is, of all the nations in the world, Japan is the only non-Western country to successfully modernise prior to the ~1990s or so. Most the others were certainly involved in many conflicts both internal and external - China being a good nearby example. And yet none of them were remotely close to as successful as Japan was. So why is the country that, according to you, should have been "decadent, only consume, universally apathetic" due to peace so much more successful?

Clearly your claims are refuted by your own "best evidence".

I love this habit that so many people here have, where you make an argument or counter-argument, then declare a flawless victory before your opponent responds. Kind of an arrogant attitude, and entirely destructive to any sort of civil discussion. Of course, the general opinion seems to be that civil discussions are inferior to deadlocked shouting matches.

Anyway, the reason that Japan advanced so quickly is because a vastly more advanced outside entity forced the technology upon them. The decadence can be seen in the way the emperor and nobility lived. The apathy, evident in their self-imposed isolation, and intentional halt of technological progress (and it was, by their own account, intentional).

It was a society where time had stopped.

Also, you remarked their unpreparedness for an attack like it's something that is perfectly acceptable. Among apathy, being defenseless is one of the worst traits men can possess.