11
   

Do you think humanity will ever evolve/adapt/learn to not engage in violence/warfare?

 
 
OGIONIK
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2009 09:58 pm
Perhaps evolutionarily speaking, the end to violence will be the next stage for us to go through.

so eugenically, yes.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2009 10:11 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:
I will not make the unimaginative argument that we have failed to get rid of slavery-- and that (although we have changed the mores in modern Western societies) we certainly have done nothing to change that part of human nature that leads to slavery.

Good thing you're not making this argument. That way I'm not going to respond that although humanity hasn't gotten rid of slavery yet, modern Western societies have made enough progress in this direction to show it can be done.

As to the points you do wish to discuss: Although I do think a world without warfare is possible, I don't think a world without violence is possible. As long as violence gets some humans what they want, some humans will be violent. It's a simple matter of costs and benefits -- independent of human nature, whether we can change it or not.

But although I cannot imagine a world without violence, I can imagine a world without war. All it takes is a UN, equipped with as much power over the countries of the Earth as, say, the EU government or the 19th century US government. We may not live to see it, but I do think it's possible in principle.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Mar, 2009 12:31 am
@Thomas,
As far as "group identity" is concerned, religion and ideology have proved to be at least as strong as nationality in recent times in the precipitation of organized violence aka"warfare".
OGIONIK
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Mar, 2009 01:16 am
@fresco,
maybe warfare defines humanity.

perhaps we shall become know as the fiercest and most effective soldiers,killers and warriors.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Mar, 2009 01:33 am
@OGIONIK,
What does define humanity is generally agreed to be the use of language. And since a common language implies a shared social"reality", it follows that the "objects" of aggression, being linguistically defined, are also shared. Hence "warfare"... the extension of individual aggression to social aggression.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Mar, 2009 01:50 am
Quote:
as long as there is religion there will never be peace, in my opinion

unless one religion finally succeeds in killing off all competitors


Possibly unless that religion is Buddhism.

That said, whether or not there is religion, there will still be wars.

Unless war is an instrument of religion (and as far as I know, only Islam makes it an instrument of religion), then all non 'war as an instrument of religion' wars are based not on religion, but on power (even though the religion may be manipulated to help justify the war).

As humans (in general) struggle for power from the time they are born, and form into societies (nationalities, religions, political parties, companies etc) who compete with each other for power - there will always be conflict. If the differences are great enough, the rewards great enough, and the deterrence not great enough...wars can eventuate.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Mar, 2009 11:11 am
@Thomas,
I will agree that nations and citizens can work together to make the world a better place... it is the idea of some perfect, peaceful Utopia that I am objecting to.

As you say, it is about costs and benefits. My fear is that in many ways forward toward this Utopian vision of a world without war-- the costs far outweigh the benefits.

Let's look at your examples...

First, I don't think that invoking the experience of the 19th century US government, with its bloody civil war, is a good way to support your argument.

The EU is not a good example of a way to eliminate war. The EU is an exclusive club that rejects countries that don't meet its cultural, political or ethical standards. You can't have an exclusive, worldwide organization.

What I am worried about is that the way you would get a world without war is not 19th century US, or the EU-- but 20th century Stalin.

Stalin was largely successful at bringing peace to the warring states in the Soviet Union, I don't think many of us would find this desirable..
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Mar, 2009 02:38 pm
@ebrown p,
Quote:
The EU is not a good example of a way to eliminate war. The EU is an exclusive club that rejects countries that don't meet its cultural, political or ethical standards. You can't have an exclusive, worldwide organization.


Quote:
As humans (in general) struggle for power from the time they are born, and form into societies (nationalities, religions, political parties, companies etc) who compete with each other for power - there will always be conflict. If the differences are great enough, the rewards great enough, and the deterrence not great enough...wars can eventuate.


In some ways it is, in some ways it isn't
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Mar, 2009 03:33 pm
@vikorr,
Any nation or group of nations who decide that they are not going to study war no more will be overun by someone no that far along.

The EU would had not even come into being without US protection to keep the former USSR 100s of thousands of tanks from going on a little sunday drive to the Atlantic ocean.
OGIONIK
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2009 11:01 am
@BillRM,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROUT

interesting socio econ9omic plan right there.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2009 11:11 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
Any nation or group of nations who decide that they are not going to study war no more will be overun by someone no that far along.

The EU would had not even come into being without US protection to keep the former USSR 100s of thousands of tanks from going on a little sunday drive to the Atlantic ocean.


Both Europe and Japan were only able to remain pacifists because the US was willing to provide military cover. Aggression is a lot like sex, the drive can be ignored and/or suppressed for a time, but the energy always has to go someplace. A society that is determined to not war must find another way to deal with the aggression energy, failure to do so will warp the society and its people.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2009 11:12 am
Do I think humanity will ever evolve/adapt/learn to not engage in violence/warfare?

Sure! But then it would not be humanity as its generally acknowledged and understood.

Bioengineering and/or an artificial-intelligence-nanny could accomplish this.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2009 11:14 am
@OGIONIK,
OGIONIK wrote:

Quote:
humanity will either learn to not practice warfare of any sort or we will all end up dying.

We r all going to end up dying ANYWAY.
How do u expect to end up??
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2009 11:18 am
@Chumly,
Chumly there better not be any unengineer humans around or the bio-engineer humans would be wipe out in a very short time frame.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2009 11:20 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
humanity will either learn to not practice warfare of any sort or we will all end up dying.


OmSigDAVID wrote:
We r all going to end up dying ANYWAY.
How do u expect to end up??


Brilliant David! I wish I had thought to say that.


0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2009 11:24 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
We r all going to end up dying ANYWAY.
How do u expect to end up??


True, and death proceeds life.....people need to die to make room for people to be born, cities need to be rebuilt and destruction of the cities through war might have the same benefit to the cities long term that the burning of prairies and forests do for them. For individual people war is a very bad thing, but there is a solid argument that war is good for humanity.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2009 11:28 am
@BillRM,
Not so!

If there were "unengineer humans around" the bio-engineered humans could respond to the specific threat via Artificial Intelligence without being violently self destructive.

Understand that if the bio-engineered humans had a sufficiently advanced Artificial Intelligence, such superior tech could negate the non-engineered humans best efforts.

In fact the bio-engineered humans via Artificial Intelligence could pacify the non-engineered humans right out of existence by humane means such as nullifying their ability to breed.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2009 11:36 am
@Chumly,
Quote:
In fact the non-engineered humans via Artificial Intelligence could pacify the non-engineered humans right out of existence by humane means such as altering their ability to breed.


You are making this WAY too complicated. The go to solution to war and aggression is to keep the individuals drugged-up on chemicals or else fully occupied in the rat race of acquisitions .
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2009 11:46 am
@hawkeye10,
Alas , vision is not your forté, as such you may prefer this thread:

http://able2know.org/topic/130407-1
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2009 12:32 pm
@Chumly,
Quote:
Alas , vision is not your forté


If this is true then showing where I am wrong is like shooting fish in a barrel, given my posting history. Funny how some don't like what I say yet can't point to mistakes in facts or logic on my part.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/28/2022 at 06:57:11