Started by swiftdriver11 · · 👁 4 views · 116 replies
…
arna;12110551 said:I’ve always felt that wars are waged solely to secure economic dominance and social control, orchestrated by what I can only describe as morally bankrupt individuals—truly wicked people—and they have absolutely nothing to do with managing population levels...
Well, if we assume these conflicts are driven by evil, then one has to consider that there are hundreds of millions of such people, considering everyone living within the borders of those imperialist powers..... especially since only a tiny minority actually reaps the rewards, while the vast majority of people are left with nothing but suffering, agony, and often a profound sense of disillusionment, regardless of whether the conflict ends in victory or defeat.
I don't think that's quite the whole picture, though... Colonial and imperialistic wars certainly provide massive benefits to the aggressor nations and their citizens, provided they emerge victorious. And because those states are so expansive, both in terms of territory and sheer population size, a very significant number of people actually do benefit from newly conquered lands and the exploitation of all the resources found within the defeated territories...
rustymaker5 said:I highly doubt it. Because nature regulates itself, you know, it establishes its own equilibrium... you can still see that in those rare, untouched spots where humans haven't messed things up yet.
But humans have disconnected themselves from nature, and even worse, they've disconnected themselves from their own true nature. You can tell by the way we exterminate entire species and irrationally strip-mine every single natural resource—hoping, I guess, that nature will just magically replenish itself—but we do it at such a frantic pace and in such insane quantities that nature can't keep up with the rhythm we've forced upon it without "responding" with some sort of catastrophe. That disconnect is also proven by the very way people think about things like "hardwired chips," innate aggression, or the supposed biological necessity of warfare...
....Anyway, I’m just throwing my thoughts out there like everyone else, not trying to claim I'm anything special.
Everything we’re going through, which is probably what happened to all the ancient civilizations before us, is likely just the fallout from the gap between our technological advancement and the basic awareness that we are all, fundamentally, stuck on this planet together... it’s just that we have such a hard time grasping or accepting that reality. But I suppose that's just our karma...
silvertiger11 said:At first, you’re the one feeling crushed by everyone else's presence. But once you finally claw your way to the top and wipe out the competition, you realize you’ve just become the new bully. Honestly, maybe wars are inevitable because people will always disagree on how the world should work. However, since we aren't exactly out there hunting for survival anymore—unless you count the food chain in the wild—most modern conflicts are really just driven by two misguided politicians on opposite sides of the aisle.
rustymaker5 said:You're right that we're talking about manipulation, and that's exactly my point. But then again, there are certain people you simply cannot goad into participating in violence or killing others, which basically disproves the idea that aggression and warfare are some kind of "natural" human state...
When it comes to the relationship between birth rates and education, there are plenty of ways to address those issues constructively, but the thing is, the warmongers don't care about that. In fact, they actively weaponize these issues to serve their own destructive, selfish agendas, which never actually align with the interests of the general public who end up paying the price for the wars they start...
On the contrary, they utilize these tactics within their own destructive methods to achieve selfish interests, which never align with the interests of the people (the majority) for whom they initiate some sort of conflict.
silvertiger11 said:At first, you’re the one feeling crushed by everyone else's presence. But once you finally claw your way to the top and wipe out the competition, you realize you’ve just become the new bully. Honestly, maybe wars are inevitable because people will always disagree on how the world should work. However, since we aren't exactly out there hunting for survival anymore—unless you count the food chain in the wild—most modern conflicts are really just driven by two misguided politicians on opposite sides of the aisle.
Jack Ortiz7 said:Look, wars aren't even enough
it's just some minor, petty chaos... people need something way more efficient than that than just fighting.
Kyle Morris7 said:To put it more accurately, you won't be able to convince them to voluntarily kill. But once they find themselves mobilized and facing mortal peril, even those types of people will kill just to survive...
...On the contrary, they utilize these tactics within their own destructive methods to achieve selfish interests, which never align with the interests of the people (the majority) for whom they initiate some sort of conflict.
They are never the same? Well, it isn't quite that simple, if one considers the nuances... Not all wars are created equal. Regarding imperialistic conflicts, I have already detailed why the masses might see some benefit. But in wars of liberation—where people rise up because they are enduring unbearable injustice—those fighting actually share the same interests and benefits as the leaders guiding them (assuming, of course, that they prevail)... And it isn't as if all leaders are inherently negative characters... In liberation struggles, they are most often positive figures...
Kyle Morris7 said:To put it more accurately, you won't be able to convince them to voluntarily kill. But once they find themselves mobilized and facing mortal peril, even those types of people will kill just to survive...
...On the contrary, they utilize these tactics within their own destructive methods to achieve selfish interests, which never align with the interests of the people (the majority) for whom they initiate some sort of conflict.
They are never the same? Well, it isn't quite that simple, if one considers the nuances... Not all wars are created equal. Regarding imperialistic conflicts, I have already detailed why the masses might see some benefit. But in wars of liberation—where people rise up because they are enduring unbearable injustice—those fighting actually share the same interests and benefits as the leaders guiding them (assuming, of course, that they prevail)... And it isn't as if all leaders are inherently negative characters... In liberation struggles, they are most often positive figures...
rustymaker5;12140968 said:Ultimately, war is just war.
Generalizations like that don't really get us anywhere... It feels to me like you’ve never actually sat down to look at this from an analytical perspective.
If I may attempt a bit of analysis myself... First, I have to clarify that when I weigh the pros and cons, I am looking strictly through the lens of the aggressor, because the side being attacked doesn't truly have a choice in the matter—they are simply thrust into conflict by necessity...
1. Imperialistic wars. Every imperial power that stands as a global economic superpower today reached that status precisely through conquest and the wealth they extracted from occupied territories. Consequently, the citizens of those nations derive significant benefit from such conflicts, quite substantial benefits indeed...
2. Liberation wars. This is essentially the mirror image of my first point, except here, the nation benefits because they no longer have to export their capital or raw materials abroad, choosing instead to utilize them domestically...
3. Ideological wars. In these cases, there can be clear advantages, though it isn't a certainty. There is profit if the democratic faction emerges victorious, whereas the damage is done if dictators or psychopaths take control...
The conflicts you mentioned in Africa are typically just struggles between two different dictatorial factions rather than true wars of liberation... During the American Civil War, we were attacked and left with absolutely no other option...
When you are backed into a corner with no alternatives, debating whether the conflict is "beneficial" becomes a completely moot point...
| I mean, honestly, if you really think about the sheer scale of everything we’re dealing with right now... it just feels like we're spinning our wheels in this endless cycle where nobody actually listens to anyone else, and then you see people like rustymaker5 chiming in with those same old arguments that we've already exhausted a thousand times over... it makes me wonder if there's any point in even trying to have a coherent conversation anymore when everyone is just so stuck in their own little bubbles, you know? It's like we're all just shouting into a void while the actual issues—the big, heavy stuff that actually matters—get pushed to the side because they're too uncomfortable or too complicated for the average person to wrap their head around... and I don't mean to go on, but it's hard not to feel a bit frustrated when you see the lack of nuance everywhere you look... it's exhausting, truly... rustymaker5 says: First off, I have to clarify that when I’m looking at whether something is a benefit or a liability, I’m strictly analyzing it from the perspective of the attacker... because the one being targeted doesn't really get a vote in the matter, they're just caught up in the conflict because they have to be... |
| I was just sitting here thinking about how everything seems to be shifting lately, you know, like we’re all just drifting through these massive waves of change without a compass... and it really gets me riled up when I see people ignoring the obvious patterns right in front of them. It’s like watching someone walk straight into a wall while staring at their phone, only the wall is this giant, systemic shift in how things work in America, and everyone is too busy arguing over trivialities to notice that the foundation is basically vibrating under our feet... anyway, I don't want to go on a tangent about the socio-economic implications of modern infrastructure, but it feels like we're losing that sense of deliberate progress we used to have back before everything became so fragmented and loud... it's exhausting, honestly. rustymaker5 says: Imperialist wars... honestly, if you look at how any of these global economic superpowers actually built their empires today, it all traces back to those massive conquests and the sheer amount of wealth they sucked dry from the territories they took over... it’s just the way it works. So, when you think about it, the people living in those countries aren't exactly innocent bystanders either, because they reap some pretty significant benefits from all that historical plunder... it's a massive advantage that shapes everything we see now... |
| I mean, I don't know what to tell you... it’s just one of those things that stays on my mind, you know? People always want to jump to conclusions without looking at the whole picture, and honestly, it's exhausting trying to explain the nuance when everyone is just looking for a quick headline or a reason to be outraged... It feels like we're constantly circling the same arguments, going round and round in this loop of misinformation, and yet nobody seems to actually listen to the details that matter... it just goes without saying at this point, really... rustymaker5 says: It’s basically like a second round of the American Civil War... just a different kind of struggle, really. It’s functionally the same as that first point I made, only this time the people actually stand to gain something tangible because we aren't bleeding cash and raw materials out to foreign interests anymore... instead, we actually get to keep what's ours and put it to use right here at home... |
Kyle Morris7 said:3. Ideological wars. There might be some benefit there, but it’s not a given. It’s obviously beneficial if the side winning is democratic, but it’s a disaster if we end up with dictators and psychopaths taking over...
Kyle Morris7 said:During the American Civil War, we were attacked and we simply didn't have any other choice.
When you don't have a choice, arguing about whether it was "useful" or not becomes completely pointless.
swiftdriver11 said:So, I’ve been chewing on this idea for a bit, and I think I’ve landed on a specific conclusion. It seems to me that nature—which is constantly being squeezed by the relentless expansion of the human population—has essentially found a way to check our species' monopoly over the planet.
Given that modern medical breakthroughs are constantly extending human lifespans, which places massive pressure on the entire ecosystem, it feels like warfare has evolved to take the place that diseases used to occupy.
Do you all think that wars are just another mechanism through which nature manages us? In other words, we're just animals, and we're the ones most threatening the balance.
If that logic holds up, then it follows that war isn't necessarily an absolute evil.🤷
Look, I know, I know—don't go labeling me some kind of heartless monster or start throwing examples from the American Civil War in my face. But if you really step back and think about it, this is just nature playing its hand against us.
I can already hear people saying that war has always existed, but let's be honest: we have never seen weaponry this devastating, and we have certainly never seen death tolls on this scale.
I'm curious to hear what you guys think.
Look, don't go branding me a heartless sociopath or start throwing examples from the American Civil War at me—but if you really sit down and think about it, this is just nature playing with its food.
People will argue that there have always been wars, but let's be honest: we've never had weapons this lethal, and the scale of death has reached levels we can't ignore.
I want to hear what you all think.
placidranger said:Not enough people die in wars. Think about the losses during the American Civil War—maybe 30,000?
Compare that to how many people die from, say, smoking cigarettes.
I struggle with viewing nature as this separate, sentient entity, but I’ll concede that war does allow for a certain kind of survival of the "fittest" individuals or societies.
If you were part of a tribe a thousand years ago, war was an efficient tool for weeding out the weak so only the strongest survived to breed.Look, don't go branding me a heartless sociopath or start throwing examples from the American Civil War at me—but if you really sit down and think about it, this is just nature playing with its food.
People will argue that there have always been wars, but let's be honest: we've never had weapons this lethal, and the scale of death has reached levels we can't ignore.
I want to hear what you all think.
Statistically speaking, far more people died from combat wounds a thousand or two years ago than they do today. Wars used to drag on for decades; almost every man was drafted, and civilian casualties were massive...
swiftdriver11 said:And how many perished in World War I and World War II?
In the Crusades?
In the War on Terror?
During the Crusades?
Wars fought against or for terrorism?
placidranger said:A lot—but relatively speaking.During the Crusades?
Nobody knows for sure.Wars fought against or for terrorism?
Not many.
(compared to the population of the country)