Do we still live in an archaic society?

[Komati]

Because unless they're being watched, the strong can take what they want. In a perfect world they wouldn't do that, but they do, and why would they let go of this power?
On a global scale it's the US and China that's the big strong warlords, in Africa it's local warlords. Unless you can change our animalistic desire to have things, and get them the easiest way possible; then your perfect world will never happen. I believe it'll never happen.

Unless we discover an alien species and decides to wage war on them I see no reason for things on earth to change. Besides, even if everyone decides to play nice; should less developed countries be denied the luxuries we in the west take for granted? Constantly brand new PCs, phones, gaming consoles, high speed fiber optic cables connecting us to to the world wide web, high standard cars, more clothing and food than we can ever consume, all made dirt cheap from slaves down in a country we can't even pronounce.
First of all there's not enough raw materials in the world for that. Second of all, like hell the current slave workers will accept working for shit wager with a shit job.

Or did I misunderstand, did you mean we should have world peace, but still have the world wealth gathered in a minority of the countries, and have the rest of the countries work as slaves who only lives to provide us more things to consume?

[Bosen]

Humans are selfish. We have an animalistic and egotistical need to dominate.
No matter how far ahead time goes, there'll always be war, because no one is ever satisfied.

[Dragon2K]

There are a few problems with your argument - mainly that you're assuming that its the "most peaceful" period in recorded history because people are evolving and moving away from violence - but that's not at all the case. There have been lulls in warfare before - Pax Romana, Mongol Golden Horde. The reason is obvious - its not that the people "evolved" out of war, its that one empire has established itself to be so dominant as to make warfare against it completely asymmetrical, and then peace sets in until the empire dissolves to internal bickering.

Today is not an exception - the reason why so few Americans have seen war is not for the lack of government trying. Its because a) America enjoys a geopolitical advantage that by and large precludes warfare on its home soil and b) Technological and economical advantage enables US to spend less bodies to accomplish things than other countries do.

Lets not forget WMDs. The weapons that preserve peace on the planet under threat of complete and utter annihilation of all. Such a pacifist concept.

The United Nations you laud so much is effective in one thing - enforcing the will of the big nations on the small nations under pretense of law and international community. It is powerless against the real players.

The reason total war is inconceivable to you today is because America is still the big dick in the room, and more and more countries are getting WMDs, forcing conflict resolutions to be done via covert assassinations and economic and social warfare (which by the way leaves more people dead, crippled, or homeless than actual military conflicts).

Does that mean war has gone away? No, it simply changed form from a purely military/muscle exercise to a political/socio-economic/cybernetic engagement.

To that last sentence: that means it's no longer war, but something fundamentally different.

I'm not just assuming that it's the most peaceful period in recorded history; it really is. In fact, I left out hunter-gatherers, among whom the evidence also seems to point to a more violent past. It's not just war that's down, it's all interpersonal violence.
Here's a TED talk about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk

While the US is powerful, it's not so powerful that its presence is pacifying Europe, for instance; or South America. These continents too are enjoying an increase in stability and democracy. In fact while they grow in power, the chance of armed conflict between them or the US is lessened, not increased. It shouldn't be surprising that wherever stable democracies are established, violence drops dramatically. Rule of law, due process to express grievances; these are all creating ways for people not only to solve conflicts without violence, but more importantly to stop conflicts from happening.

While the United Nations may not be perfect, your assertion that it is 'only effective at enforcing the will of big nations' is not based in fact. The UN can hold governments accountable for their actions and acts as a deterrent to would-be aggressor nations. Peacekeeper forces have been successfully deployed to many areas and kept situations from escalating (the alternative for the UN here would be either nothing or unilateral action by one of those big nations.. what do you deem preferable?)
That some countries have more power than they should, including SC permanent members who protect countries under their sphere of influence (such as Russia and Syria, the US and Isreal and China and North Korea) does not make the whole institution worthless. Small nations can and often do band together in the UN and are anything but powerless.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the world's most translated document, is just one example of a statement adopted by the UN General Assembly that has had tremendous impact on the world we live in, making its way into national constitutions the world over.

You make many assertions, but show precious few facts. Your entire attitude seems to me to be based more on a general negativism than an honest appraisal of the situation of the world we live in.
There are many problems and injustices in the world today, but that does not mean you have to add imaginary ones or deny positive movements and developments.

[Powerogue]

I suppose it'll keep happening until violence stops being seen as a practical method to solve problems. That has to be done on a fundamental, cultural level. How much violence are we teaching children?

[Endus]

I suppose it'll keep happening until violence stops being seen as a practical method to solve problems. That has to be done on a fundamental, cultural level. How much violence are we teaching children?

It can't happen, because it's hard-wired. We can teach a toddler not to hit, but toddlers will always try that out. That's because it's an expression of inherent, instinctive drives. We can try and change the expression of those drives, but that works until another culture decides to go a different way, and then BAM, war. That's why it's not a solvable issue.

We can try to manage it, which we should. But it won't ever stop needing to be actively managed, and we're not perfect enough to be able to pull that off forever.

[Gothicshark]

Why do we have to fight? Why is there war? In this day and age, our civilization should be so far past this its crazy stupid we are as primitive as we are. I'm not talking about primitive technology, but our social and political standards of practice are archaic. If there are disagreements, why cant they be handled peacefully. I know that people will say "only in a perfect world" but WHY CANT WE BE THERE! For example, I live in the USA and am very proud to be an American. Its been all over the news and media about the problems N. Korea government instigating controversy and making threats that could quite possibly lead to war. But why? Why don't the people of today use their intelligence? If people could get over the pointless power struggles, show of control, the need to intimidate and feel like they have something to prove and the only way to do it is with violence??? Now, factoring in human nature, there will always be some bad apples but, as a global society we will never make progress if there are 196 countries all pulling in different directions. I'm not saying that we need to unite as one per se but to be on a level where we don't have the issues and fears we have today would be amazing.

My question to you is: How can this be fixed. Can it be fixed and how long do we have to wait before our societies realize there is a better way.

The reason why we still have wars:

Taking resources from people that are weaker.
Imposing beliefs on others.
Trying to achieve wealth.

So to end wars forever, everyone in every nation would have to be equal, no religions, no distinction between races with only one language. Oh and no Nations. So the question becomes Which language, which economic plan, and how do you remove religion form the human race. Mixing of Races is easy as forcing people to intermarry. inside of 200 year we can homogenize the human race.

[Derpleton]

Its because some men just want to watch the world burn. =)

[Spectral]

Well, no. I recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1455883115

[Dragon2K]

Well, no. I recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1455883115

Me too!
(though I admit I still have to read it myself; its contents in brief are in the TED talk I linked a few posts back)

---------- Post added 2013-02-11 at 04:36 AM ----------

Because often times there is no amount of words that will change someone's mind on something. When the disagreement is considered to be unacceptable, such as one side violating core moral values held by the other side, the other side may feel compelled to do something.

Which is why we have rule of law, enforcement and courts, etc. This is only lacking on an international level.
The other side will not be so eager to 'do something' if they can be certain to be punished for it. This retribution should come from an independent party; otherwise you have an arms race and/or a vendetta.

[Spectral]

Me too!
(though I admit I still have to read it myself; its contents in brief are in the TED talk I linked a few posts back)

Ha, I didn't see that or I would have just quoted you in the first place! Yeah, I think it's pretty strongly evidenced that societies are just plain better now than in the past.

[Kalyyn]

Kalyyn, not everyone is a dick.

Not everyone is a dick. That is true. However, your argument falls apart because of the fact that not everyone isn't a dick. As long as there is a single douchebag in the world who has power, war will be necessary.

And because dicks are such a massive percentage of the human population, this condition will remain true for eternity.

[Endus]

Which is why we have rule of law, enforcement and courts, etc. This is only lacking on an international level.
The other side will not be so eager to 'do something' if they can be certain to be punished for it. This retribution should come from an independent party; otherwise you have an arms race and/or a vendetta.

You can't have an independent party, with an international court. It's a "court" of peers. Small, weak countries will kowtow to the expectations of that court, but powerful countries, who see an opportunity for greater standing? No, they'll go for the throat. That's what happened in Germany, post WWI. Sanctions were put in place when they lost the first World War, to prevent them rebuilding and to aid the other nations with their own rebuilding efforts. Those same sanctions created hardships and mistrusts that Hitler manipulated in his rise to power, appealing to German pride and identity. There WAS an international court, and it was set up precisely to prevent a German rise to power again, and it failed in less than 30 years.

Why? Because Germany was as strong as anyone else in that "court". Courts only work if they have the power to enforce their decisions. And enforcing said decisions is, itself, violent in nature.

That's not to say we shouldn't try, but we shouldn't expect that it will be secure. Because it won't be. Human violence is something you need to provide an outlet for, or the pressure builds until it explodes.


That's one of the things "sports" exist to do, FWIW. They're ritualized and sanitized pseudo-violence. For some, like football, the violence is a bit less pseudo than others. They exist and are encouraged by nations, as they provide just such an outlet, both for players, directly, and for spectators, by proxy. The same reason the Romans had stadiums for gladiatorial combats and such (which, despite Hollywood, were almost entirely between professionals to first blood or the like, historically speaking, outside of a few nutbar Emperors).

[semaphore]

You can't have an independent party, with an international court. It's a "court" of peers. Small, weak countries will kowtow to the expectations of that court, but powerful countries, who see an opportunity for greater standing? No, they'll go for the throat. That's what happened in Germany, post WWI. Sanctions were put in place when they lost the first World War, to prevent them rebuilding and to aid the other nations with their own rebuilding efforts. Those same sanctions created hardships and mistrusts that Hitler manipulated in his rise to power, appealing to German pride and identity.

Kind of a bad example. Those sanctions fell apart because they were economically crippling, and the German economy was (and still is) at the heart of European prosperity, so they had to be dismantled. Germany was very weak, but the world realised that Versailles sums were impossible. Furthermore (and flowing from this) in the court of international public opinion the French state (which tried to collect reparations by force) were seen as the villains.

Also those were treaty terms to be enforced by the other parties of the treaty, not judgements of an international court. It was the failure of the French and British governments to respond effectively to the militarisation of the Rhine that, and the premature and unfortunate demise of the conciliatory German government, that led to the Hitler's bankrupting rearmament.

[Deleted]

Because greed + personal gain > all

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Dragon2K]

I was responding to why there cannot be peaceful conflict resolution. When people decide to blow those off, the end result is still violence. What's your point?

That people won't 'blow those off' if they can be sure of retribution. There's a LOT less interstate violence now than ever before. This is because there are rules in place, with the UN standing behind them. You can't just annex another country if you're feeling powerful, because you'll have a UN resolution against you within a week and armed forces of surrounding states in your capital in the next. Muammar Gaddhafi thought he could ignore the UN and violently repress the revolution against his rule, to his loss.
The situation in Syria shows where the problem lies: the UN was undermined by Russia and China who were afraid of western ambitions. Well, let them solve the problem then. With their 'strategy' of calling for 'talks' WHILE supporting Assad's use of his military against his own population, they have made sure that that country has disintegrated to the point where there's no foretelling how it will ever return to normalcy.

But in a world of democratic societies who together uphold international law and human rights for all... I don't see why there would ever need to be war.

Because Germany was as strong as anyone else in that "court". Courts only work if they have the power to enforce their decisions. And enforcing said decisions is, itself, violent in nature.

The treaty of Versailles wasn't an independent court, it was the imposition of extremely punishing 'war reparations' by the victors upon the defeated. This was exactly what started the vendetta Hitler wielded against Germany's oppressors when it came back to power.

The way you word it is telling "it was set up precisely to prevent a German rise to power again". A court would have been trying to fairly allocate blame and prevent further CONFLICT, not by destroying one nation to to the benefit of others.

---------- Post added 2013-02-11 at 04:37 PM ----------

Because greed + personal gain > all

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Fucking deep man. Fucking deep. -.-

[Dragon2K]

But even in America you can be sure there will be retribution and people still blow them off. Why would a country be any different? After all, the will of a country is still the will of a person.

Do you think many people will steal if they don't think they can get away with it? Sure, some things still happen like people who fly into a passion and commit violence despite the consequences. I doubt that that would happen by committee though.
But regardless, even the United States which has a reasonably high crime rate for a first world country, is an extremely safe place compared to how it would be without the courts. Gang wars only occur in places where law enforcement is weak.

[Grimbold21]

What's interesting about this subject is that almost everyone includes all of the humanity in the description.

Ok, we get it, there's a considerable amount of greedy, selfish, bad, evil idiots... but hey, there's a lot of good people as well.

Also find it odd when people refer to human nature / behavior as this unchangeable condition, and to sustain such argument, they immediately resort to the child like behavior to argue the aspect of humans being naturally greedy and selfish.
Maybe im missing the bigger picture here, but just because i slap a kid when i was one for a piece of candy or a toy, it doesn't mean that im gonna do the same when im a grown man... you know, people grow up, they interact socially, get to understand and respect certain reasonable social boundaries.

And this ridiculous notion that humans always want more and more and more. What in the world?! What? Don't you know yourself? Do you think that you'll never stop wanting more? Hell im 25 and im already aware that i don't want nothing more than a modest life style.

[Sedative]

Why is there war?

Where there is religion, there is war.

[Zhangfei]

Where there is religion, there is war.

No there isn't? There's been centuries of peace in smaller religious groups and it's only when religion is policitised that it is even used as a reason

Where there is power there is war. I can't recall a war in history not based around power and wealth.

[Deleted]

no you silly we have BIG GUNS now!

but for the rest yes we are still in the dark ages

and btw mr proud to be an american,have you ever considered in how many wars your country has been involved since it's existence? are you sure it's always somebody else's fault?do not try to blame iran and N. Korea for all the plights of the world,your country is actively supporting exploitation of the middle class by the rich and hides the fact by using the word freedom to describe it(say freedom americans love you,always works) free market really? that's a no rules market aka financial jungle and whoever perishes in it too bad.

international relationships are an endless powergame and no country has ever refused to participate in it,EVER
also finance is a game where each player attempts to control more wealth(be it slaves->land->gold->capital) and no rulling class ever gave it a rest,EVER

so how exactly do you want the world to be a better place when we've only gained technology and practical skills?

also nationalism,has it really changed so much since WW1? everyone blames someone else for everything bad, and almost everyone is proud to be a x nationallity,as if you've done something in order to be so...