Stating the Obvious: War is Easier

[dualstow]

Just throwing some ideas out there. I am not a big fan of the term military-industrial complex, but is it reasonable to say that the aerospace and armament industries do better if we have wars to fight or even to prevent? Tangentially, energy companies might also benefit. Since politics is entwined with lobbyists and funding, it follows that war and (some massive sectors of) business serve each other.

On the other side, although we would all benefit from world peace, there doesn't seem to be some huge sector of business that is inherently peace-related. There are all kinds of wonderful things we could divert our attention and resources to in times of peace: earth science, pschology, etc. But you don't see the same relationship with power that you do with aerospace in the paragraph above.

Does this mean that peace is basically screwed?

A few other very obvious premises:

- You can fight the urge to smoke a cigarette all day long, but if you smoke one at the end of the day you've lost. It's all your lungs care about. Similarly, you can have peace for a while, but only one party has to blow it and you've got war.

Look at all the people in the UK who were against the war in Iraq, but thanks to British subversives and neocons like Stone, you ended up with Tony Blair who supported Bush (Just kidding, Stone). Maybe the antiwar protests in the UK counted for something in the minds of extremists, but I think the bottom line for most of them was that the UK was part of the invasion.

It is easier to destroy than to create.

- A period of peace can end rather abruptly with a single act of aggression or a misunderstanding. War, on the other hand, usually needs time to die out. Even after a quick and decisive victory, nothing can quash the ill will on both sides. It takes time.

Peace is fragile.

So, it is not that crazy that nuclear detente has given way to constant conventional wars all over the world. Not to be defeatist; I think we need to do our best to strive for peace, but I ask again: are we screwed? I'm hoping for some good news, something to look forward to.

[Benko]

we would all benefit from world peace,

We would all benefit from eating appropritely, exercising, and taking good physical and mental care of ourselves.  That does not happen for the vast majority of people because we are human beings who have many wants, desires and drives, including many that were programmed into ourselves by parents and society, etc.

War happens for zillions of reasons including that some people have anger issues, because of misunderstandings, cultural differences, because the tribe over there has the land with all the really good water buffalos, etc.

Can you prevent fighting at your family holiday dinners?

World peace is a laudable goal, but not possible in a planet filled with humans (see above).

[Mountaineer]

The doctrine of "original sin", whether one believes it or not, sure seems to be an explanation of what we observe in the way many people think about others, the way many talk about each other, and ultimately the way many treat each other in mean, hateful, and often warlike ways  - even when we feel it isn't "right".  We humans frequently seem to be able to rationalize why we do what we do, why the "others" are deserving of our ill will and action.

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

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

When I see how badly people want certain things, and their ability to rationalize killing to get/keep those things, I have very little faith that we'll have "world peace."

I'd have more respect for people who desire it so deeply if I didn't have such a cynical attitude towards caring about something that is not only out of your control, but even if you were king of the US and UN, you probably wouldn't be able to engineer a solution.  The words "world-peace" is probably even a concept in the first place because a population of liberals who have refused to take responsibility for how their life turned out have to change the focus from their failures to the failures of "more evil players" in the world.  They had to put a word on the most benevolent of all concepts that they can use to showcase what a genuinely good person they are to distract from how badly they fail at delivering promises to their family and employers/clients/customers.

It's probably obvious that I think that these little moral tangents we go on are a quasi-subconscious delay tactic to doing the positive things we CAN control in our lives that are sort of uncomfortable to do, but will yield us (and those we profess to care about) far better circumstances than what we/they currently have.  If one is failing (in some material way) to take care of the ones he has promised (explicitly or implicitly) to care for, what better distraction to actually shining a light on your failures and FIX them than to find something MORE evil (war, murder, genocide, etc) somewhere in the world and pontificate about it.  It simultaneously avoids talking about your flaws and makes them seem immaterial in comparison to the plight/problem/evil you are discussing.

While I'd like to think I'm immune to this shit, this post is probably a perfect example of it. 

Cue universe implosion.

Sorry to quasi-hijack this topic.  It's just that the more I work with people, the more I see this as potentially the number one underlying flaw that prevents a happy life for the person and an efficient life for the people they interact with, and I have an almost allergic reaction to those who seek sympathy for their problems while not implementing reasonable solutions, or focus on things out of their control to avoid taking responsibility for where they've mismanaged some aspect of their life, or more importantly, mismanaged an obligation they have to someone else.  One of the people who does this particularly bad is my Dad, so it hits a particular nerve that it probably wouldn't with most people.

Unless you're POTUS, a billionaire, head of the UN, or some other highly-influential individual, it probably would pay to stop trying to put yourself on a moral pedestal lamenting about "world peace," and start making yourself a more healthy version of yourself, and fulfilling the obligations you've made to people who REQUIRE you to be a better version of yourself for their own profit and happiness.  And while I disagree with having too many obligations to too many people, if you're going to make them, follow-through, or do your best to. 

At least solvable problems are INTERESTING and mentally stimulating to talk about.  Like a fun Sudoku puzzle or something.  Even if you can't control the outcome, your brain isn't just wallowing in its own moralizing superiority... it's actually working to solve a f'kin problem, even if it's not something you can put into action... which is at least useful in spirit.  It's still a waste of time if life is passing you by in a broken state, but it's at least somewhat healthy if done in limited doses.  But once the brain moves to pity-seeking or moralizing mode, I lose my f'kin mind.  The words "world-peace," to me, just wreak of little more than the brain's will to avoid accountability on one's own failures.

This is me at my most pro-business-owner and anti-liberal, folks.  Enjoy it.    Oh and I hope I didn't offend anyone with my rant. 

[Mountaineer]

When I see how badly people want certain things, and their ability to rationalize killing to get/keep those things, I have very little faith that we'll have "world peace."

I'd have more respect for people who desire it so deeply if I didn't have such a cynical attitude towards caring about something that is not only out of your control, but even if you were king of the US and UN, you probably wouldn't be able to engineer a solution.  The words "world-peace" is probably even a concept in the first place because a population of liberals who have refused to take responsibility for how their life turned out have to change the focus from their failures to the failures of "more evil players" in the world.  They had to put a word on the most benevolent of all concepts that they can use to showcase what a genuinely good person they are to distract from how badly they fail at delivering promises to their family and employers/clients/customers.

It's probably obvious that I think that these little moral tangents we go on are a quasi-subconscious delay tactic to doing the positive things we CAN control in our lives that are sort of uncomfortable to do, but will yield us (and those we profess to care about) far better circumstances than what we/they currently have.  If one is failing (in some material way) to take care of the ones he has promised (explicitly or implicitly) to care for, what better distraction to actually shining a light on your failures and FIX them than to find something MORE evil (war, murder, genocide, etc) somewhere in the world and pontificate about it.  It simultaneously avoids talking about your flaws and makes them seem immaterial in comparison to the plight/problem/evil you are discussing.

While I'd like to think I'm immune to this shit, this post is probably a perfect example of it. 

Cue universe implosion.

Sorry to quasi-hijack this topic.  It's just that the more I work with people, the more I see this as potentially the number one underlying flaw that prevents a happy life for the person and an efficient life for the people they interact with, and I have an almost allergic reaction to those who seek sympathy for their problems while not implementing reasonable solutions, or focus on things out of their control to avoid taking responsibility for where they've mismanaged some aspect of their life, or more importantly, mismanaged an obligation they have to someone else.  One of the people who does this particularly bad is my Dad, so it hits a particular nerve that it probably wouldn't with most people.

Unless you're POTUS, a billionaire, head of the UN, or some other highly-influential individual, it probably would pay to stop trying to put yourself on a moral pedestal lamenting about "world peace," and start making yourself a more healthy version of yourself, and fulfilling the obligations you've made to people who REQUIRE you to be a better version of yourself for their own profit and happiness.  And while I disagree with having too many obligations to too many people, if you're going to make them, follow-through, or do your best to. 

At least solvable problems are INTERESTING and mentally stimulating to talk about.  Like a fun Sudoku puzzle or something.  Even if you can't control the outcome, your brain isn't just wallowing in its own moralizing superiority... it's actually working to solve a f'kin problem, even if it's not something you can put into action... which is at least useful in spirit.  It's still a waste of time if life is passing you by in a broken state, but it's at least somewhat healthy if done in limited doses.  But once the brain moves to pity-seeking or moralizing mode, I lose my f'kin mind.  The words "world-peace," to me, just wreak of little more than the brain's will to avoid accountability on one's own failures.

This is me at my most pro-business-owner and anti-liberal, folks.  Enjoy it.    Oh and I hope I didn't offend anyone with my rant.

moda,

I think this makes 1002. 

... Mountaineer

[MachineGhost]

World peace is a laudable goal, but not possible in a planet filled with humans (see above).

I believe it is possible with an AI Overlord.  I don't actively advocate or fund this end yet ... in just 10 more years, computing power will be as powerful as the human brain.  Beyond that....

[MachineGhost]

Sorry to quasi-hijack this topic.  It's just that the more I work with people, the more I see this as potentially the number one underlying flaw that prevents a happy life for the person and an efficient life for the people they interact with, and I have an almost allergic reaction to those who seek sympathy for their problems while not implementing reasonable solutions, or focus on things out of their control to avoid taking responsibility for where they've mismanaged some aspect of their life, or more importantly, mismanaged an obligation they have to someone else.  One of the people who does this particularly bad is my Dad, so it hits a particular nerve that it probably wouldn't with most people.

Parents of that generation are not the self-help generation.

[dualstow]

World peace is a laudable goal, but not possible in a planet filled with humans (see above).

I believe it is possible with an AI Overlord.  I don't actively advocate or fund this end yet ... in just 10 more years, computing power will be as powerful as the human brain.  Beyond that....

Like the Eschaton in the novel Singularity Sky. It kept the peace and didn't ask for much, except an injunction against going back in time and preventing the Eschaton from coming into existence.

I think it's also possible if everyone could be completely materially satisfied. Give them paradise now so they can stop yearning for paradise in the afterlife.

[Libertarian666]

World peace is a laudable goal, but not possible in a planet filled with humans (see above).

I believe it is possible with an AI Overlord.  I don't actively advocate or fund this end yet ... in just 10 more years, computing power will be as powerful as the human brain.  Beyond that....

Like the Eschaton in the novel Singularity Sky. It kept the peace and didn't ask for much, except an injunction against going back in time and preventing the Eschaton from coming into existence.

I think it's also possible if everyone could be completely materially satisfied. Give them paradise now so they can stop yearning for paradise in the afterlife.

I think the former is more likely than the latter. The average person today, in the US at least, has a higher standard of living than any king did until the 18th century (at least), and yet they are not noticeably satiated in their desires. I don't think the human animal is designed for that, at least without a lot of work on the spiritual level.

[Benko]

... The average person today, in the US at least, has a higher standard of living than any king did until the 18th century (at least), and yet they are not noticeably satiated in their desires. I don't think the human animal is designed for that, at least without a lot of work on the spiritual level.

+ 1

[moda0306]

... The average person today, in the US at least, has a higher standard of living than any king did until the 18th century (at least), and yet they are not noticeably satiated in their desires. I don't think the human animal is designed for that, at least without a lot of work on the spiritual level.

+ 1

+2

I think our happiness tends to be built on relativity.  Relative to the things we experienced yesterday, and relative to our neighbors. 

[MachineGhost]

I think our happiness tends to be built on relativity.  Relative to the things we experienced yesterday, and relative to our neighbors.

So the question then is, does becoming a monk promote happiness?  I've considered it.  As in formally, not self-imposed.  But the idea of taking pleasure in repetitive and boring menial tasks doesn't light a fire in the part of me that wants to evolve the world.  It seems stupid to selfishly waste your life contributing nothing to others well-being (other monks in the monastary don't count anymore than, say, the Amish do).

[moda0306]

I think our happiness tends to be built on relativity.  Relative to the things we experienced yesterday, and relative to our neighbors.

So the question then is, does becoming a monk promote happiness?  I've considered it.  As in formally, not self-imposed.  But the idea of taking pleasure in repetitive and boring menial tasks doesn't light a fire in the part of me that wants to evolve the world.  It seems stupid to selfishly waste your life contributing nothing to others well-being (other monks in the monastary don't count anymore than, say, the Amish do).

Well I certainly think that adopting certain monk-like mind-sets is healthy.  I've been attempting to "gamify" everything in my life and limit distractions... so cooking, cleaning, doing laundry, working, working out & eating healthy... it's all "filling" the void that video games or TV used to.  Keeps me mentally stimulated, and is necessary/healthy to boot.

One area where I crave stimulation that I don't avoid is in hanging out with my friends.  I really enjoy it.  I think leaving them to go hang out with a bunch of monks could leave me a bit depressed.

[Pointedstick]

I think our happiness tends to be built on relativity.  Relative to the things we experienced yesterday, and relative to our neighbors.

So the question then is, does becoming a monk promote happiness?  I've considered it.  As in formally, not self-imposed.  But the idea of taking pleasure in repetitive and boring menial tasks doesn't light a fire in the part of me that wants to evolve the world.  It seems stupid to selfishly waste your life contributing nothing to others well-being (other monks in the monastary don't count anymore than, say, the Amish do).

I'm not sure I'm going that far, but I've decided to try Buddhism on for size and am finding that it's really helping me be more content with what I already have. This isn't something unique to Buddhism; loads of philosophies and people have observed that desires are limitless, so endlessly fulfilling more and more desires doesn't actually result in improvements to happiness. The Stoics said some similar things. And I think it's completely true. At a certain point--and I think this is really easy in the material cornucopia of Western civilization--you can just say, "Ok, I have enough of X" and stop trying to get more or hyper-optimize it to the nth degree. The latter one is really hard for me which is why I like the "perma-buy/AK-47 version of everything" threads. I can say, Ok, my cast iron skillets are enough skillet forever and I'm reasonably confident that they're no more unhealthy than anything else. Now I'm going to move on and focus on something else."

[MachineGhost]

Well I certainly think that adopting certain monk-like mind-sets is healthy.  I've been attempting to "gamify" everything in my life and limit distractions... so cooking, cleaning, doing laundry, working, working out & eating healthy... it's all "filling" the void that video games or TV used to.  Keeps me mentally stimulated, and is necessary/healthy to boot.

Well, the problem is that new or neglected stuff is intellectually novel for awhile, but then you start getting resentful because it is not intellectually satisfying and the hedonism effect kicks in to null out the dopamine.  At least, that is my experience.  You can only B.S. yourself for so long.  All of it is chores that you HAVE to do to be optimally clean and healthy, not what you really CHOOSE to do.  Certainly, plenty of people just let themselves go and are SVOL, leave it up to the woman to do all the cleaning, hygiene, etc..  I have very little respect for people like that because of all the pain I have to put up with in doing those boring, menial tasks.  Lifting weights isn't that bad because you do get a high afterwards, but some days I have to quickly nip the inner wimp in the bud before it gets a foothold.  Benko is right about the vast about of B.S. the brain throws at you and it actually seems to get worse as you get older.

The most exciting that has happened to me in years is I recently snagged a Neato XV vacuum robot (the only intelligent one out of the big four manufacturers).  Holy smokes, that cute and fascinating little thing is a blissful taste of the SciFi future...  it just cannot arrive fast enough!

[MachineGhost]

The latter one is really hard for me which is why I like the "perma-buy/AK-47 version of everything" threads. I can say, Ok, my cast iron skillets are enough skillet forever and I'm reasonably confident that they're no more unhealthy than anything else. Now I'm going to move on and focus on something else."

I feel the same way.  I like to maximize voluntary simplicity against the utmost value of an object desired.  It makes sense to get the absolute best value for the level of money you are willing to spend.  It requires a lot of work/research though.  I don't get the impression shoopers do this in general, otherwise there wouldn't be such a cornucopia of choices and associated marketing fiction.

There's not very many clear upfront examples I can think of...  superior Plasma HDTV's (less expensive) vs inferior LED LCD HDTV's (more expensive) or high-end chairs ($700+) vs the Cheap Chinese Shit sold at OfficeDepot (<$200).  Cost/label has ZERO to do with quality and value and is a poor heuristic indicator to anyone but those vapid conspicious consumers that impose envy on everyone else.  I think the same mentality that drives shoppers to buy into marketing fiction is the same exact mentality that causes them to screw up their investment plans.  They're morons in that they're going with their emotional impulses rather than rational thought.

[Lowe]

@ OP

War is not a usable strategy for free market businesses.  Without the religious obedience of the people, and the consequent ability to tithe them, an organization cannot wage wars.  That is, only the state can wage wars.

Organized killing has gotten less frequent since the stone age.  I see no reason the trend won't continue, till there is no organized killing to speak of.  If you see a reason, let me know.  However, citing bad human nature is a religious appeal, not an argument.  Also the idea that people are never fully satisfied is beside the point.  Even if that were true, plenty of people go through life generally unhappy, and they don't form roving gangs.

[Libertarian666]

@ OP

War is not a usable strategy for free market businesses.  Without the religious obedience of the people, and the consequent ability to tithe them, an organization cannot wage wars.  That is, only the state can wage wars.

Organized killing has gotten less frequent since the stone age.  I see no reason the trend won't continue, till there is no organized killing to speak of.  If you see a reason, let me know.  However, citing bad human nature is a religious appeal, not an argument.  Also the idea that people are never fully satisfied is beside the point.  Even if that were true, plenty of people go through life generally unhappy, and they don't form roving gangs.

Organized killing may be less frequent but (and?) it is significantly more deadly than it was in the stone age, or even the 19th century. Governments have had the means to exterminate the human race for 60 years or so, which is a mere blip in the length of history, so the fact that they haven't done that yet is not very comforting to me. We have come VERY close on at least one well documented occasion (http://www.brightstarsound.com/), and probably quite a few others that we don't know about.

[Mountaineer]

I think our happiness tends to be built on relativity.  Relative to the things we experienced yesterday, and relative to our neighbors.

So the question then is, does becoming a monk promote happiness?  I've considered it.  As in formally, not self-imposed.  But the idea of taking pleasure in repetitive and boring menial tasks doesn't light a fire in the part of me that wants to evolve the world.  It seems stupid to selfishly waste your life contributing nothing to others well-being (other monks in the monastary don't count anymore than, say, the Amish do).

Martin Luther would be proud of you. 

... Mountaineer

[dualstow]

Like the Eschaton in the novel Singularity Sky. It kept the peace and didn't ask for much, except an injunction against going back in time and preventing the Eschaton from coming into existence.

I think it's also possible if everyone could be completely materially satisfied. Give them paradise now so they can stop yearning for paradise in the afterlife.

I think the former is more likely than the latter. The average person today, in the US at least, has a higher standard of living than any king did until the 18th century (at least), and yet they are not noticeably satiated in their desires. I don't think the human animal is designed for that, at least without a lot of work on the spiritual level.

Well I did say completely, not merely better than before.

I agree with the last part, and this time I am reminded of a nonfiction work, Robot, by Hans Moravec. He wrote about one potential future in which machines make the big decisions -- there goes Donald Fagen's I.G.Y. in my head -- and humans are comfortable, almost like pets, and are gently put out to pasture over a few generations. I don't think we stick around in that scenario. I think Moravec used the word retirement with regard to the human race.

[Kbg]

@ OP

War is not a usable strategy for free market businesses.  Without the religious obedience of the people, and the consequent ability to tithe them, an organization cannot wage wars.  That is, only the state can wage wars.

Organized killing has gotten less frequent since the stone age.  I see no reason the trend won't continue, till there is no organized killing to speak of.  If you see a reason, let me know.  However, citing bad human nature is a religious appeal, not an argument.  Also the idea that people are never fully satisfied is beside the point.  Even if that were true, plenty of people go through life generally unhappy, and they don't form roving gangs.

So inaccurate on so many levels...pretty much every statement in it.

[Pointedstick]

@ OP

War is not a usable strategy for free market businesses.  Without the religious obedience of the people, and the consequent ability to tithe them, an organization cannot wage wars.  That is, only the state can wage wars.

Organized killing has gotten less frequent since the stone age.  I see no reason the trend won't continue, till there is no organized killing to speak of.  If you see a reason, let me know.  However, citing bad human nature is a religious appeal, not an argument.  Also the idea that people are never fully satisfied is beside the point.  Even if that were true, plenty of people go through life generally unhappy, and they don't form roving gangs.

So inaccurate on so many levels...pretty much every statement in it.

Your objection surprises me; I would be interested to hear it.

[MachineGhost]

Your objection surprises me; I would be interested to hear it.

Me too.  Maybe he means that quality of killing has increased while the volume of conflicts have decreased?

[barrett]

So the question then is, does becoming a monk promote happiness?  I've considered it.  As in formally, not self-imposed.  But the idea of taking pleasure in repetitive and boring menial tasks doesn't light a fire in the part of me that wants to evolve the world.  It seems stupid to selfishly waste your life contributing nothing to others well-being (other monks in the monastary don't count anymore than, say, the Amish do).

I am a couple of days behind on this thread. Just wanted to say that monks whom I spent time with in Burma and Laos seemed to want the stuff/life that I have. But many of them are only living in a monastery so that they can get a couple of humble meals each day.

[Lowe]

@ OP

War is not a usable strategy for free market businesses.  Without the religious obedience of the people, and the consequent ability to tithe them, an organization cannot wage wars.  That is, only the state can wage wars.

Organized killing has gotten less frequent since the stone age.  I see no reason the trend won't continue, till there is no organized killing to speak of.  If you see a reason, let me know.  However, citing bad human nature is a religious appeal, not an argument.  Also the idea that people are never fully satisfied is beside the point.  Even if that were true, plenty of people go through life generally unhappy, and they don't form roving gangs.

So inaccurate on so many levels...pretty much every statement in it.

Here is an infographic that walks through homicide rates in pre-state and state societies.  It also shows homicide rates in current countries, as they changed over the last ~700 years.  They're get much lower over time.

You'd be right if you objected that the scale of wars has increased, on that time scale.  The infographic also shows that WWI and WWII were greater in death toll than any previous war or genocide.  However, given the much higher homicide rates of the past, I think it's safe to say you had a higher chance of being killed violently in the distant past.

BTW it is accurate to call tribal people pre-state.  However the tribe is a predecessor to the state, in that it owns its members, and all their labor.  Which means it can tithe.  It's also a religious organization like the state.  To clarify, the modern state is separate from the church.  However rights, constitutions, and citizenship are religious ideas.  They are not observations of fact or reason, but are invented whole cloth.  Likewise with tribal membership, tribal gods, etc.

EDIT : Corrected some grammar, and added the last sentence.