25 replies to this topic

[smooder]

Am i the only one that thinks the only reason we cant all get along is because of greed?

[AllStarZ]

Not greed, but it isn't bad to have your own personal interests first in your heart.

[Whitey]

Peace is overrated. Without conflict, progress becomes unnecessary. And don't tell me there is nothing wrong with stalled technology as you sit and type on a computer.

-Boidy

[Soul]

Greed is just one factor in why there is always conflict.

[Sharpnessism]

C. Boidy, on 10 Jul 2008, 21:47, said:

Peace is overrated. Without conflict, progress becomes unnecessary. And don't tell me there is nothing wrong with stalled technology as you sit and type on a computer.

-Boidy

You don't need to have wars to have development. Some times, wars prevent development and peace is preferential for progress.

Edited by Sharpnessism, 11 July 2008 - 03:51.

[Whitey]

Really? Last I checked, the reason that we have things like the iPod, the super awesome uber graphics card, and all that jazz is simple corporate warfare. Not fought with guns, but with technology and money.

Armed combat is just an escalation of this.

Progress cannot arise from peace, if it can, give me an example, an infallible one, one that cannot be at all related to conflict.

-Boidy

[The Wandering Jew]

C. Boidy, on 11 Jul 2008, 12:18, said:

Really? Last I checked, the reason that we have things like the iPod, the super awesome uber graphics card, and all that jazz is simple corporate warfare. Not fought with guns, but with technology and money.

Armed combat is just an escalation of this.

Progress cannot arise from peace, if it can, give me an example, an infallible one, one that cannot be at all related to conflict.

-Boidy

Let me see:
1. America nuked Hiroshima in the 1940's. Look at Japan now.
2. Soviets occupied Berlin in the 1940's. Look at Germany now.
3. USSR fell in 1991. Look at Russia now.
4. The American Civil War lost more Americans than World War 2. Look at the US now.
5. China made its Cultural Revolution. Look at China now.

Well, it seems that the aforementioned countries tasted progress after violent events, so, no. Not one example for now.

[Sharpnessism]

C. Boidy, on 11 Jul 2008, 0:18, said:

Really? Last I checked, the reason that we have things like the iPod, the super awesome uber graphics card, and all that jazz is simple corporate warfare. Not fought with guns, but with technology and money.

Armed combat is just an escalation of this.

Progress cannot arise from peace, if it can, give me an example, an infallible one, one that cannot be at all related to conflict.

-Boidy

Africa has been in conflict for a long time. They've been in bad shape for a long time. Warfare has not produced technological progress for the most part.

I never said that conflict didn't cause progress, simply warfare/armed combat isn't the best way to have progress. I agree that conflict is the cause of technological progress, no one will develop technology purely through peace but there is never pure peace, there will ALWAYS be some kind of conflict so asking for an infallible example of progress without relation to conflict is impossible. Plus conflict is a very broad term. Conflict with oneself, conflict in business, conflict with the environment, etc.

When you said "peace is overrated", I assumed you meant the opposite of wartime.

[The Wandering Jew]

We only follow Darwin's theory of Natural Selection.

Only the fittest survive.

Since that is the way we live, we can assume that activities that may be harmful to others can be forgiveable as long as one is benefitted from it. (Sounds Machiavellian? Yes it is!)

Always remember that tradition approves all forms of competition.

So, it is very difficult to "get along" with one another (as the late Rodney King would have said).

[Sharpnessism]

Oh yea, in response to the thread. No, we can't get along. If there are 2 people and they cannot get a long, how can so many countries and leaders get along? Greed is just another factor in everything. People will fight each other over the smallest things. From differences in opinion to differences in look. There are just too many things that can cause fights, you can't stop them all.

In fact, there are times where people will fight just for the hell of it (bored, tired, bad mood).

Quote

Since that is the way we live, we can assume that activities that may be harmful to others can be forgiveable as long as one is benefitted from it. (Sounds Machiavellian? Yes it is!)

In that case slavery was fine right? I mean it helped build the U.S. of A. There was A LOT to benefit from slavery but it was stopped anyway. You have to weigh how harmful the activity is to how much benefit there is. Of course a this is subjective so people will disagree about a lot of things.

[Destiny]

No WWII = No Nuclear Science = No Nuclear Power = Coal, Gas etc. etc consumed faster

[Rayburn]

``We only follow Darwin's theory of Natural Selection.

Only the fittest survive.´´

Sure we do but the problem is that most people get it wrong. Survival of the fittest does not mean that nature prefers those who are strong enough to kill all the others, that's the flawed, dangerous interpretation. In reality, it's about adaptation. Those who are the best adapted to their environment have higher chances of survival. This might include the ability of a being to defend oneself and, by consequence, kill others but it's not the main aspect.

Greed may be one of the great dividing factors but I have come to the conclusion that the biggest trouble source is organised religion. In most cases, religion blinds people and puts an ideological veil in front of their world view. Religion caters to one of, if not THE greatest fear of man: Death. They tell you what you have to do in order to enter a better world in the afterlife, something no scientist has proven to exist yet. They basically tell you fairy tells but these tales are comforting and you can cling to them if you feel lost. But what's the basis of these tales? Writings. Old writings written by mere humans, no better than you and me and over time, these writings have been exploited and even adjusted to fit into the personal agenda of religious leaders. Since religion gives you so much comfort, you're also willing to support it and some people believe that it has to be supported by violently destroying other religions. This has been going on for centuries. Whenever two different religions are involved in a conflict, even if the reason for it is economical or political, sooner or later, one side will call the others "infidels" and there we go, a holy war. Religion may be a source of comfort but as soon as there is an organised mass of believers who follow a leader, there is danger. It's no different than a political ideology.

Not saying I'm an atheist though. I just don't think that we have our free will in order to submit it to a group of people who simply follow a vaguely defined cause. Everyone should find his own beliefs. As long as we don't try to convince eachother and spread our "personal religion" there is no danger to it.

Edited by Rayburn, 11 July 2008 - 05:46.

[AllStarZ]

The Wandering Jew, on 11 Jul 2008, 0:33, said:

C. Boidy, on 11 Jul 2008, 12:18, said:

Really? Last I checked, the reason that we have things like the iPod, the super awesome uber graphics card, and all that jazz is simple corporate warfare. Not fought with guns, but with technology and money.

Armed combat is just an escalation of this.

Progress cannot arise from peace, if it can, give me an example, an infallible one, one that cannot be at all related to conflict.

-Boidy

Let me see:
1. America nuked Hiroshima in the 1940's. Look at Japan now.
2. Soviets occupied Berlin in the 1940's. Look at Germany now.
3. USSR fell in 1991. Look at Russia now.
4. The American Civil War lost more Americans than World War 2. Look at the US now.
5. China made its Cultural Revolution. Look at China now.

Well, it seems that the aforementioned countries tasted progress after violent events, so, no. Not one example for now.

Let me see.

1. America nuked Hiroshima in the 1940's. The area is still irradiated, and has left a legacy upon the world of the senselessness of nuclear warfare. Furthermore, it was only because of American post-war investment and foreign aid that Japan had developed its industry. Not because an atomic bomb was dropped on a city.

2. The Soviets occupied part of Berlin in the 1940's as part as an agreement with the Western Allies. When relations went sour they built a big wall, behind which they separated families and oppressed people for decades.

3. A corrupt government, with problems of intrastate terrorism and corporate ogliarchs.

4. The Civil War did not solve the problem of integrating African Americans into society and it only embittered Southerners. A few decades after the war, the situation in the South became much like as it was before the war, only now the white people were generally poorer.

5. The Cultural Revolution killed thousands for no rational reason. You're telling me that an attempt by a dictator to regain power and influence by killing off intellectuals is PROGRESS? If anything it set "progress" back a decade or so.

Furthermore progress certainly does not arrive from warfare either. World War I shattered European hegemony and led to an even worse war. The Vietnam Wars killed over 3 million Vietnamese and destroyed their economy, ruined US prestige and faith in the presidency as well as wasted billions of dollars.

And again, how do you measure "progress"? The ability to bring ruin to cities and massacre people more efficiently? The machines that make life more of a "convenience"? Woman suffrage, man on the moon, the right to piss on flags?

War is a very undesirable option in politics, then, and especially now. Right now every country seems courteous to each other enough, but really its flowers and gifts and daggers to the throats at the same time.

[CodeCat]

Destiny, on 11 Jul 2008, 7:41, said:

No WWII = No Nuclear Science = No Nuclear Power = Coal, Gas etc. etc consumed faster

Not true. Chicago Pile 1 wasn't part of the Manhattan project that sought to create a nuclear weapon, it was constructed by Enrico Fermi as a civil operation.

[Z_mann]

Hmm, but what about the wars of the earlier ages? They could have hardly brought in any kind of radical technological innovation. Also, wartime brings chaos to society, and if said society is to make progress, it has to have balance and stability in all sectors.

As for why humans can't get along, I believe that the answer lies somewhere in the emotional complex of our minds. Emotions affect our rational decisions on a much greater scale than anyone is willing to admit. Civilized life is not the direct cause for organized conflict - but it is a vessel. The very basic concept of individualism and corporeal life necessitates conflicts as a unavoidable possibility - beneficial or otherwise.

[Whitey]

Quote

If... society is to make progress, it has to have balance and stability in all sectors.

Bull Shit. New technology comes about in an attempt to stabilize or to shift the tide in a chaotic situation.

-Boidy

[Rich19]

It is conflict of one form or another that fuels research. There would be no incentive to try to do things like miniaturise electronics if others weren't trying to do it first.

[CodeCat]

I'd like to generalise and say it's pressure in any form. There needs to be some motivation, whether external (through others or through nature) or internal (belief).

[The Wandering Jew]

Rayburn, on 11 Jul 2008, 13:43, said:

``We only follow Darwin's theory of Natural Selection.

Only the fittest survive.´´

Sure we do but the problem is that most people get it wrong. Survival of the fittest does not mean that nature prefers those who are strong enough to kill all the others, that's the flawed, dangerous interpretation. In reality, it's about adaptation. Those who are the best adapted to their environment have higher chances of survival. This might include the ability of a being to defend oneself and, by consequence, kill others but it's not the main aspect.

...

No, one does not have to literally kill another.

What I meant was that in any conflict/competition, nature allows the "quick-witted" (any adjective you might want to add) to rule over the "dim-witted". Nature allows "ingenuity" (no matter how cruel it is) over compassion. So, those who have these charcteristics will always be on top. If one "boss" fell from power, it means that another factor (or another "boss") that is higher than him toppled him down. The "weak" can never overtake the "powerful", right? Much like heat transfer. Cold can never go to hot bodies. It is always the opposite.

So technically, we are always in inequality since we humans have chosen liberty rather than fraternity, then fraternity is useless. Liberty and fraternity are always different. That's the reason why we have laws to prevent "excessive" liberty.

Another example is this very thread. Surely we do not agree on something, so how can we get along and accept an idea that pleases all? We can go on and on until Dauth close this thread (And when? I do not know when. Maybe right now.)

Edit: Another scenario for this issue is the flame replies between Chris and Lizzie (was that her?). They got warnings from e-Studios moderators. The point is, they did not get along so the consequence was reprimand.

Edited by The Wandering Jew, 12 July 2008 - 04:35.

[Shirou]

Rich19, on 12 Jul 2008, 0:29, said:

It is conflict of one form or another that fuels research. There would be no incentive to try to do things like miniaturise electronics if others weren't trying to do it first.

True. Without competitors, no tech company is going to make new products that fast. Look at the computer technology. In CPU's and GPU's it's either way two big companies fighting over market share, pumping out new fast chips and technological novelties in an attempt to outsmart the other. We have all seen what happens if either one of them gains a (partly) monopoly. Take nVidia which is now going down the dirt because their chips are less technologically advanced than the one's ATi is currently producing. They totally slacked it, and thus allowed ATi to come back.

Same thing goes for all progress there is to make. All in all Rayburn is right, it's competition which makes one stronger, and it is natural to have conflicts in that situation.

[Sharpnessism]

The Wandering Jew, on 12 Jul 2008, 0:30, said:

Rayburn, on 11 Jul 2008, 13:43, said:

``We only follow Darwin's theory of Natural Selection.

Only the fittest survive.´´

Sure we do but the problem is that most people get it wrong. Survival of the fittest does not mean that nature prefers those who are strong enough to kill all the others, that's the flawed, dangerous interpretation. In reality, it's about adaptation. Those who are the best adapted to their environment have higher chances of survival. This might include the ability of a being to defend oneself and, by consequence, kill others but it's not the main aspect.

...

No, one does not have to literally kill another.

What I meant was that in any conflict/competition, nature allows the "quick-witted" (any adjective you might want to add) to rule over the "dim-witted". Nature allows "ingenuity" (no matter how cruel it is) over compassion. So, those who have these charcteristics will always be on top. If one "boss" fell from power, it means that another factor (or another "boss") that is higher than him toppled him down. The "weak" can never overtake the "powerful", right? Much like heat transfer. Cold can never go to hot bodies. It is always the opposite.

So technically, we are always in inequality since we humans have chosen liberty rather than fraternity, then fraternity is useless. Liberty and fraternity are always different. That's the reason why we have laws to prevent "excessive" liberty.

Another example is this very thread. Surely we do not agree on something, so how can we get along and accept an idea that pleases all? We can go on and on until Dauth close this thread (And when? I do not know when. Maybe right now.)

Edit: Another scenario for this issue is the flame replies between Chris and Lizzie (was that her?). They got warnings from e-Studios moderators. The point is, they did not get along so the consequence was reprimand.

That's why we have great quick-witted leaders like George W. Bush. He's not stupid but far from the brightest and quickest. The truth in human life is that often the most quick witted are not the ones who lead us and are not the ones who we would idolize.

[Cuppa]

Destiny, on 10 Jul 2008, 23:41, said:

No WWII = No Nuclear Science = No Nuclear Power = Coal, Gas etc. etc consumed faster

Oh don't forget about things like Rocket engines, jet aircraft, flying wings, RADAR, Microwaves... so many things!

[EX-P.F.C. Wintergreen]

I didn't read all the posts ahead of me but, IMO I do think greed is a factor but not the main thing. I think that a collecitve mess of people that are generally stubborn or crass usually gain power from the rest of us who are generally indifferent until the things get bad.

I just believe that man is inherently good (tested in the Dark Knight, one of the best movies I've ever seen) and that there are a few people in the planet that ruin it for the rest of us and brainwash the weaker minded or less fortunate to their cause and go challenge other people just like them.

Respek

TB

[Prophet of the Pimps]

Our society might be new but our brains are not. We are still victim of a brain that is close to 40,000 years behind in terms of our societal evolution. We still live in a world where we live by tribal instinct. Weather it be a tribe in the form of Nations, Ideology, Race etc. We are a species who has mastered the art of differentiation. We can divide a group of people based on the flimsiest set of classification characteristics. After that a simple tribe mentality which is deeply rooted in territorial domination (Includes not just land but culture, ideology also.) takes over and then its a simple question of weather its "us or them". We are a race of hunters. We became gathers only 40,000 to 30,000 (Figures still disputed but thats the best estimate we got) years ago. So unless there is an evolutionary shift in humans we will still follow the path of war and conflict because in the end it is our Nature.

[Dr. Strangelove]

C. Boidy, on 11 Jul 2008, 4:18, said:

Really? Last I checked, the reason that we have things like the iPod, the super awesome uber graphics card, and all that jazz is simple corporate warfare. Not fought with guns, but with technology and money.

Armed combat is just an escalation of this.

Progress cannot arise from peace, if it can, give me an example, an infallible one, one that cannot be at all related to conflict.

-Boidy

A nation that was truly dominant wouldn't have anything to gain from attacking another country.