[mc32]

Without war, societies implode; they get taken over. Keeping a society going means lots of ‘work’.

Did the Egyptians, Macedonians, Romans, Mughal, etc., stand long on the shoulders of peace?

It doesn’t happen.

Why did Siberians come over to the Americas? To explore and spread peace? Populations encroach and you stand and fight or seek out new land. We've run out of new land so equilibrium is achieved through other means, including war.

[4ggr0]

Are you implying that war is necessary?

[Communitivity]

Some kind of external 'work' is necessary. War is the easiest form of such work, easiest meaning requiring the least momentum to get a society behind it.

I would love to see us go to war on climate change, but that's not likely as long as we have charismatic politicians fighting to build a base by stirring hateful emotions. Whether that hate is against abortions, Palestinians, african-americans, muslims, or others.

As a society I think we have become more apathetic, more sad, and as result more interested in things that distract us from how bad it is. As a result people like Musk gain a cult following, and much attention. We want to do amazing things against climate change, we want to colonize the rest of the solar system..but NASA's budget this year was $30.9B, next year it's $25B, and over the last two years Musk has lost around $180B (Over 7x the NASA budget for next year).

Our problem is not the technology. It usually isn't. It's our prioritization and attention to avoid uncomfortable truths.

[beedeebeedee]

You should read William James's lecture 'The Moral Equivalent of War'. He was a founder of the anti-imperialist league and a pacifist, but recognized the benefits of war for a society (joint effort galvanizes a people together). He proposed we conduct "war on nature", which we would call "disaster relief" nowadays.

[Communitivity]

I'll take a look at it, thank you.

[suoduandao3]

Is your argument that in trying to avoid war as a source of external work, people are following anyone with an alternative vision for external work with Elon Musk being one person putting such a vision forward?

[Communitivity]

No. I wasn't trying to argue, but stating what I perceive. My perception is that our society has become more apathetic and depressed than before, and we seek distractions. Focusing on solving real problems that could be existential threats to humanity (climate change, all our eggs in one basket/planet, etc.) is the opposite of a distraction. Yet we as a people cannot sit still, or our apathy becomes impossible to ignore, so we find something. A war, just or unjust, is an easy something to find - there is always someone who we deem needs protecting; always someone we deem needs punishing.

[whatwhaaaaat]

Absolutely amazing. Hey kids we’re not killing enough innocent civilians and as a result people are beginning to follow “dreadful” people like elon musk.

Do wars produce innovation? Sure. Is any of that innovation worth a single life? Bet ya wouldn’t think so if it was your loved one.

[tticvs]

"Hey kids, get ready to die because our society decided war is bad m'kay and now we don't have the ability to defend ourselves."

[whatwhaaaaat]

Not even close to the same thing. I’m fully prepared to defend myself in my own home. Multiple measures in place to insure specific boundaries are not crossed and if they are multiple methods to commit violence in defense of my family. Not sure how pillaging my neighbor for their underground orange juice would aid in that.

In fact I would argue unjustified war makes the citizens of the country waging the war even more vulnerable and not less.

You are not understanding the thread at all but not a huge shock at orange site.

User 1: we need war to facilitate “external work” and innovation.

User 2: innovation through war is true but is it worth the cost of innocent lives (ignoring the lmfao Elon comment)

Work on comprehending the conversation before adding drivel.

[Communitivity]

I hope I am not user 2. Innovation through war happens, but it happens faster if we focus on innovation itself. Also, the innovations that happen in war are predominantly weapon-focused.

It is good to be able to defend yourself. However, if you have a high belief that your neighbor will attack you, then it's a good idea to ask why. The answer is usually ideology or resource scarcity, more often resources or a combination.

If you solve the problem of scarcity of resources, then there is a much reduced desire for war. Climate change is going to make food and land more scarce, leading to more conflict. Population growth is going to do the same (though we're seeing some signs that might be self-limiting in some countries). If we poured into space colonization and climate change half the money each year we spend on defense, we'd stand a good chance at solving those problems. I don't have the math in front of me, but I think half would be about $500 billion per year, counting regular spending and special aid packages. That's 20x NASA's budget for next year, or put another way, 20 years of NASA research at current funding.

[matheusmoreira]

> I’m fully prepared to defend myself in my own home.

> Multiple measures in place to insure specific boundaries are not crossed

Who said anything about crossing boundaries? You realize you're talking about war, right? Enjoy your drone airstrike.

[tticvs]

Self-reflection test failed

[mc32]

First civilians aren’t always innocent, often they are active participants, out of necessity to survive, in war. Two, appeals to emotions don’t change the calculus of war on the level of a society. We are both individuals and a society. We have roles as both. People will go to war putting their own selves in harms way to protect ideals, family, whatever. Look at Ukraine. They could simply submit. Should they stop fighting? Rationally they should.

[whatwhaaaaat]

Is this ai generated?

[edgyquant]

Childish and idealistic mindset. Grow up

[DR_Hero]

Is this what passes for an adult and constructive comment to you?

Can you add something more substantial to the conversation

[slibhb]

War may not always be necessary in the future but it was in the past and continues to be.

[mc32]

Unless you have superpowers to sway people like Putin, Xi, the CIA, Ayatollah, etc., yes, else those with aspirations will trample the pacifists.

[4ggr0]

I disagree. You take the attackers POV (I'd say every example you've listed is viewed negatively by the vast majority of global citizens).

So in the eye of an attacker, war is necessary. To me that's not enough to prove that wars in general, as a concept, are necessary for societies to move forward. They're more of a shortcut for dictators or institutions to get things they otherwise couldn't get, or at least not as fast/efficient as they'd like.

[mc32]

In theory you’re right. In reality we have people who seek power or in some popular cases a popular mandate to cause change or negate change through war (many civil wars, for example).

This isn’t unique to people. Lots of organisms and even systems operate in similar manner.

[4ggr0]

Yeah you're right, there will always people who start wars, or would like to start them. But if the question is, "Is war necessary?", then my answer is no. Maslow's hierarchy of needs does not contain war as an item, our earth moves on fine if no war occurs, etc.

[euroderf]

(obligatory mention of "Report from Iron Mountain")

[thfuran]

>they get taken over.

Without war?

[wombatpm]

In retrospect the natives of North America would have been better off attacking and killing white Europeans on first sight.