Thread: Why We Fight.

Originally Posted by ranma187

Is Americas obssesion for war really to defend the Freedoms that we have. Or is it because Arms dealers insist on getting richer by manfucturing wars?

Discuss:

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...arch&plindex=0

A lot of our fighting is necessary, but big business is full of evil people. I think to be really successful as any kind of executive or salesman, you have to be a sociopath. I am not exaggerating. Top executives and the world's greatest salespeople do not have consiences. If they had the emotional depth necessary to have a conscience, they would not be the money seeking missiles that they are. It takes a great deal of manipulation and ignoring of the feelings of others to make it far in that way of life, and success is the only thing that really gives them any kind of fulfillment. However, I think they do a lot of good for the economy and the production of our luxuries we like so much. They just need as many eyes on them as possible so they don't go too far out of bounds with their evil natures. Are weapons executives behind our perceived needs for war? I don't put such a thing past them for a second. It is definitely within them to pull something that evil. However, I don't think that is what is happening. Pulling such illusions involving the tendencies of large religious movements and the major policies of other nations would be very, very difficult and probably impossible.

Everyone loses in a war except the people selling the weapons.

Originally Posted by Alric

Everyone loses in a war except the people selling the weapons.

Isn't that from that movie?

The military-industrial complex has to have war to perpetuate itself, and since that's where the most powerful people are making their money, that's what we do. It kind of sounds like I'm saying the same thing, but it's not as simple as "arms dealers" getting rich. War used to be a stimulus to the general economy as well; however, that is not the case anymore.

Its not so much the arms dealers as the banks. The banks make loans to both side of the wars. Some people like to think war helps the economy but it doesn't. Its just an illusion. There is a sudden surge of manufacturing and people build weapons and war supplies, so a lot of people get jobs and it seems like it helps. The problem is all that money is basicly being wasted.

It would be like if the government suddenly decided to hire 10,000 new people to sit on their ass all day long. 10,000 new jobs would be created and all the people would pay taxes and buy stuff and it looks good. Untill you do the math that is. 10,000 people being paid to do nothing is a drain on the economy.

Simply put (and all of the best explanations are) it is human nature to fight.

Good video.

Originally Posted by AspirationRealized

Simply put (and all of the best explanations are) it is human nature to fight.

well I don't think it is human nature to commit wars and genocide.
for our first 35,000 years the human race barely left a mark on the planet. we were tribals and only fought off animals and hunted for food. However after the ice age ended. humans notice that certain plants survived the cold. Humans discovered how ou grow such plants and thus started agriculture. Agriculture let to the concept of Ownership. Over the years this spiralled into large civilizations, and along with religion. These were human made concepts that started war. therefore i don't think it is human nature to start wars, but instead our very own concepts created the need for war.

Originally Posted by ranma187

well I don't think it is human nature to commit wars and genocide.
for our first 35,000 years the human race barely left a mark on the planet. we were tribals and only fought off animals and hunted for food. However after the ice age ended. humans notice that certain plants survived the cold. Humans discovered how ou grow such plants and thus started agriculture. Agriculture let to the concept of Ownership. Over the years this spiralled into large civilizations, and along with religion. These were human made concepts that started war. therefore i don't think it is human nature to start wars, but instead our very own concepts created the need for war.

I think we didn't leave a mark because we didn't have the technology; that's all; if we had had it we would have of course.

Originally Posted by ranma187

well I don't think it is human nature to commit wars and genocide.
for our first 35,000 years the human race barely left a mark on the planet. we were tribals and only fought off animals and hunted for food. However after the ice age ended. humans notice that certain plants survived the cold. Humans discovered how ou grow such plants and thus started agriculture. Agriculture let to the concept of Ownership. Over the years this spiralled into large civilizations, and along with religion. These were human made concepts that started war. therefore i don't think it is human nature to start wars, but instead our very own concepts created the need for war.

All animals have a sense of ownership, and they don't need agriculture to have it. As you said, people used to be tribal nomads. Im sure these tribes attacked eachother all the time. War is simply a tribal war on a large scale.

Life is violent. It is an evolutionary advantage and fact. Arms dealers are not the cause of war. War is the cause of arms dealers.

In fact, I'm pretty sure we know humans have been murdering eachother for more than 35000 years. I'll post a link here in a minute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_warfare

All conflict is caused by difference. Every man is different.

Its the truth.

I'm with UM--sort of.

Those who start wars are almost universally unconcerned with the death that results from war, and all wars are started by someone or other. I think that it is, and was, very rare for one nation to start a war out of necessity against another, and that wars have been started primarily because sociopaths come into power and convince their people that war is a necessity, either to promote something good, prevent something bad, or, most commonly, both.

I think this applies to the Iraq War very aptly, since almost every party involved is concerned purely with their own self-interest. The US government has refused to prosecute private companies that defraud the military and harm the war effort, which rather indisputably reveals the mind-set of the US government at the highest levels.

It's tempting to say that weapons manufacturing companies are the ones pulling the strings, but it's not the whole story. They can promote war, but they cannot create it. Whoever has the authority to declare war must bear that responsibility, and, it is hoped, would punish any deception when it is discovered. If the people who put them in power do not reject the war and do not reject the deception when it is uncovered, then they must also bear responsibility.

Humans are prone to war with each other, but it's a bit of a cop-out to leave it at that. Many people know very little about wars, and perhaps most would reject war if they had a full understanding of it. One could easily blame virtually anything on human nature, but it doesn't stand as an explanation without something more specific.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Humans are prone to war with each other, but it's a bit of a cop-out to leave it at that. Many people know very little about wars, and perhaps most would reject war if they had a full understanding of it. One could easily blame virtually anything on human nature, but it doesn't stand as an explanation without something more specific.

On the contrary, I would say it is a perfect explanation.

You're being specific, which is fantastic... for specific things. You may fix the Iraq war with that thinking, but that specific solution won't stop another.

You're dealing with the branches. Instead, look at the roots. Find the source, a reason that is broad, rather than narrow.

As I said before. Every conflict by humans is caused by a difference.

The only reason why blaming it on human nature is pointless is because it is repetitive. The only way to have complete peace among humans is to lose all our individuality (our differences), and I don't see that happening, nor do I want to.

Could the world have less war? Yes. But complete peace isn't worth the price.

I'm going to go out on a limb and be specific with your generalization

Robots evolving to lie:
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jan...arn-how-to-lie

I can imagine that the behavior of complex animals has evolved a similar tendency, slight though it may be, to form individuals who are compelled to pursue their own self-interest, while others are compelled to act for the good of the species. We may call the former individuals sociopaths, and the latter individuals the average.

If such behavior is part of human nature, but has a genetic or developmental basis, it can be analyzed and, perhaps, removed without sacrificing individuality or our humanness, since the majority do not possess that trait anyway.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

it can be analyzed and, perhaps, removed without sacrificing individuality or our humanness, since the majority do not possess that trait anyway.

...removing people who differ from the majority will preserve individualism? XD sounds like a paradox to me. But I understand what you mean. Still, seems to me like if everyone was focused on the good of others, any individuality would diminish since yourself is second to the mass.

And to say that eliminating all the sociopaths would eliminate all conflict... well, it would have eliminated a lot of wars, but there are those based on other differences, and others still that are fought (or at least belieaved to be fought) for the good of everyone involved. If I were to go back to your branches, the Iraq war would be fought, in the eyes of Americans for the good of all, right? Y'know, since our ways of thinking differ from theirs, and we're obviously right in our way of thinking (I am taking this position just to convey a point, I personally don't know enough about the war to take an official stand).

Regardless, it'll take a long while, and a lot of restricted freedoms to do what you are talking about...

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I'm going to go out on a limb and be specific with your generalization

Very artful. xP

That's a reasonable counterpoint. I was referring to the genetic or developmental "defect" that could be the cause of sociopathic traits, but whatever its source, it is certainly a part of the human species. Removing it would be removing part of what makes sociopaths different from everyone else, and since being a sociopath isn't wrong in and of itself, it is reasonable to say that it is equivalent to reducing the ability of sociopaths to differ from everyone else, their individuality.

However, I think the terminology is a bit confused here. Sociopaths are defined by their inability to experience empathy, while everyone else experiences empathy to some degree whether they want to or not. Members of both groups lack a choice in the matter, and so I wouldn't view the trait as something defining any degree of individuality beyond a physiological impairment. Similarly, autism is may make a person more distinct from everyone else, but only because of a lack of social ability.

To the extent that removing the "selfish gene," to borrow a phrase from Dawkins, would end wars, you're absolutely right. There's plenty of room for honest mistakes to occur without sociopaths, and wars will happen when conflict is viewed as a necessity or as a means of revenge. The issue in those cases is likely public awareness and not the motives of any particular person.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

That's a reasonable counterpoint. I was referring to the genetic or developmental "defect" that could be the cause of sociopathic traits, but whatever its source, it is certainly a part of the human species. Removing it would be removing part of what makes sociopaths different from everyone else, and since being a sociopath isn't wrong in and of itself, it is reasonable to say that it is equivalent to reducing the ability of sociopaths to differ from everyone else, their individuality.

However, I think the terminology is a bit confused here. Sociopaths are defined by their inability to experience empathy, while everyone else experiences empathy to some degree whether they want to or not. Members of both groups lack a choice in the matter, and so I wouldn't view the trait as something defining any degree of individuality beyond a physiological impairment. Similarly, autism is may make a person more distinct from everyone else, but only because of a lack of social ability.

To the extent that removing the "selfish gene," to borrow a phrase from Dawkins, would end wars, you're absolutely right. There's plenty of room for honest mistakes to occur without sociopaths, and wars will happen when conflict is viewed as a necessity or as a means of revenge. The issue in those cases is likely public awareness and not the motives of any particular person.

well I think it's mainly that people need to be educated. You gotta admit there are a lot of dumb people, who run primarily on selfish gene instinct.
The biggest problem seems to be so many people are oblivious to these kinds of things that they allow sociopaths to rule our world.

BTW RD, on an unrelated note. What anime is your avatar from? or did you make it? oh and why do i only see ur posts here and in R/S/ sorry bout the questions.... your arguments have peaked my curiosity

well I think it's mainly that people need to be educated. You gotta admit there are a lot of dumb people, who run primarily on selfish gene instinct.
The biggest problem seems to be so many people are oblivious to these kinds of things that they allow sociopaths to rule our world.

BTW RD, on an unrelated note. What anime is your avatar from? or did you make it? oh and why do i only see ur posts here and in R/S/ sorry bout the questions.... your arguments have peaked my curiosity

I agree with you on that. The reason sociopaths get to rule the world is that people let them and, understandably, confuse lack of empathy with strength of will. It doesn't help that the sociopaths deliberately manipulate people into making that mistake.

The avatar is from an anime called The Big O and I just have a bad habit of posting here and in R/S. I get distracted by politics and mysticism.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I agree with you on that. The reason sociopaths get to rule the world is that people let them and, understandably, confuse lack of empathy with strength of will. It doesn't help that the sociopaths deliberately manipulate people into making that mistake.

The avatar is from an anime called The Big O and I just have a bad habit of posting here and in R/S. I get distracted by politics and mysticism.

ahhh. It seems a lot more people are waking up to these facts lately. I can't prove it but it's kind of what i notice.

and aww! i guess this place has more interesting convo than senseless banter. how about a dream journal?

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I agree with you on that. The reason sociopaths get to rule the world is that people let them and, understandably, confuse lack of empathy with strength of will. It doesn't help that the sociopaths deliberately manipulate people into making that mistake.

The avatar is from an anime called The Big O and I just have a bad habit of posting here and in R/S. I get distracted by politics and mysticism.

Big O is a good anime, however I am slightly bitter towards it because [adult swim] decided to play it several times and ignore Outlaw Star, which I was a fan of in my childhood.

Also, I agree with what you said before. Its nice to see someone who can recognize another point, and come to a reasonable compromise without letting pride or blind stubbornness cloud their argument.

Originally Posted by AspirationRealized

...removing people who differ from the majority will preserve individualism? XD sounds like a paradox to me. But I understand what you mean. Still, seems to me like if everyone was focused on the good of others, any individuality would diminish since yourself is second to the mass.

...

Regardless, it'll take a long while, and a lot of restricted freedoms to do what you are talking about...

One thing to keep in mind is that promoting values of public service and educating people to the benefits behind those values will do the trick, changing the idea of who are the heroes. We adjust selection pressures all the time without directly thinking about it or implementing any kind of policy.

Eventually someone would ask what's in helping everyone else for them?

The ego is very essential.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Robots evolving to lie:
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jan...arn-how-to-lie
.

It makes me happy, for reasons I cannot explain, if robots can really exhibit traits of altruism and cheating. I want it in documentary form, and it should show and explain the actual coding, as well as the trials. NAO. >:U

Originally Posted by AspirationRealized

Eventually someone would ask what's in helping everyone else for them?

The ego is very essential.

You don't have to eradicate anything, just adjust the mix.