Is humanity hard-wired for war and conflict?

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 08-04-2015, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

Just off the top of my mind ..

The best way to ensure peace may be to have a totalitarian dictatorship that efficiently enforces laws that ensure peace and prohibits differences, disagreements, behaviours and situations that lead to conflict. If people are free to disagree, then conflict arises. For example, if people have the freedom to pursue different religions, then religions may clash. To keep the peace, it's better to outlaw all religions, perhaps save one.

It might also be helpful to eradicate cultures, dialects and to breed people so that mankind was more homogenous. Freedom of speech would obviously have to go and free press as well. Such a nation would probably attract the ire of neighbouring nations and so that could cause war on an international scale, but if such a nation came out the victor and could assimilate all of mankind, then peace could be maximized and war minimized.

sounds like you are talking about a new world order, my friend

it's funny because HG wells suggested more or less the same thing with his movie "things to come"

i'm mostly skeptical about the logistics of pulling that off without creating a hellish china-like police state where the new war is the party vs subversion rather than nation A vs nation B.

but i do think there is some merit in authoritarian rule that people fail to recognize, due to their ideological dedication to democracy. but of course i've been over this many times

Guybrush · 08-05-2015, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

sounds like you are talking about a new world order, my friend

it's funny because HG wells suggested more or less the same thing with his movie "things to come"

i'm mostly skeptical about the logistics of pulling that off without creating a hellish china-like police state where the new war is the party vs subversion rather than nation A vs nation B.

but i do think there is some merit in authoritarian rule that people fail to recognize, due to their ideological dedication to democracy. but of course i've been over this many times

Hmm .. I've not seen Things to Come. I might check it out.

Making such a huge state run sustainably, efficiently and with minimum conflict does seem like a stretch, but perhaps it could be done by superb management and the aid of future technology.

I also think there are various merits to authoritan rule (even if I'd generally prefer to live in a democracy), but I guess that's for another topic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChelseaDagger

Someone mentioned the feminist movement being a catalyst for the end of mysogyny in this country (well, at least socially-accepted institutionalized mysogyny)... But has the average quality of life REALLY imroved for the modern woman? Do we really have "more choices" or are they just DIFFERENT choices than we used to have? Men no longer oppress us in the classical sense, sure, but as a woman, I argue that we merely traded one bully for another: the mysogynist in exchange for the micromanaging, shrieking fem-nazi.

It's not about the quality of life for women, although I assume that has generally improved. It's about the worth of human beings and not being lesser for simply being a woman. It's about equal rights, freedoms and opportunities - to get education, to get jobs, to be equally protected by the law. If you're implying that western world women are in no way better off than they were, I'd say that shows a lack of insight.