Complete and Utter Failure

Level 14
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
1,607
Without a large or powerful enough government, how do you presume war to start?
Cultural/racial/religious differences, "that village over there has better corn than us, let's kill 'em", one place having it worse than the neighbour, just from human nature.

People are never going to co-exist peacefully. We NEED governments. If we didn't have them, we would just be a bunch of tribes. We would co-exist peacefully inside the tribes, until one tribes starts to feel supreme and they go kick the asses of the neighbouring tribes then make them their slaves. Then we have nations all over again.

The world will never join in hands either. There's just too many differences between people and nations to allow people the make peace with eachother.
 
Level 17
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
1,963
I suppose so.

Come to think of it, I don't think the peasants of old were any more willing to fight each other than common citizens are today. It's always the people in power who want to fight each other for power. The only reason the average person supports their government going to war is because they are irrationally scared for their own safety. Without a large or powerful enough government, how do you presume war to start?


You cannot remove the principle. Humans are genetically prone to be social and develop communities. Communities will always have some people in power over the other, power will naturally develop every where unless you are isolated in an island off some where by your lonesome.
 
Level 12
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
1,067
I agree with Hakeem. If you aren't in power, you aren't going to be able to start a war. You may get into fights with other people, but you aren't going to start a full-scale war without power.

Anyway, either way, there's just going to be issues.
 
Level 27
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
2,872
Cultural/racial/religious differences, "that village over there has better corn than us, let's kill 'em", one place having it worse than the neighbour, just from human nature.
You have a bogus sense of human nature. I know my town would never get into a physical fight with another town, let alone a war. We've had zucchini competitions before, but never corn wars.
People are never going to co-exist peacefully. We NEED governments. If we didn't have them, we would just be a bunch of tribes.
Not in this day and age. I might buy the argument that we needed government in the histories, but I think we've gotten to a point where we don't need them. We are more interconnected than ever before possible. Take this very discussion. I don't see any reason to go to war with you, whoever you are or wherever you live. You seem reasonable enough for there never to be a reason for me to attack you.
We would co-exist peacefully inside the tribes, until one tribes starts to feel supreme and they go kick the asses of the neighbouring tribes then make them their slaves.
Please elaborate on this. Why the hell are they going to go kick other's asses, or otherwise intentionally start a fight?
There's just too many differences between people and nations to allow people the make peace with eachother.
Then we ought not to try, right? Even if you don't think so, there are people who would read that, or think that, and think it's pointless to try to improve in any manner. Through the internet, I know people in other countries, I've talked to them, and I've never met the person who thought I should die on principle. This leads me to believe that those people are few are far in between.
Humans are genetically prone to be social and develop communities. Communities will always have some people in power over the other, power will naturally develop every where
Yes, and I'm not going to try to stifle this. My preaching is for an initial state of voluntary anarchy. From this, yes, I expect and encourage communities to form. Of course, with the underlying anarchic mentality, these communities will have a critical difference between those of today:
The trick is finding a method by which we can all agree.
Rest assured, that there is such a method.
 
Level 14
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
1,607
You have a bogus sense of human nature. I know my town would never get into a physical fight with another town, let alone a war. We've had zucchini competitions before, but never corn wars.
I believe you have a bogus sense of human nature if you truly believe that people will somehow exist in harmony forever without any sort of leadership. A leader WILL arise at some point, and the chances are that atleast in a few places particularly violent leaders are born.

Not in this day and age. I might buy the argument that we needed government in the histories, but I think we've gotten to a point where we don't need them. We are more interconnected than ever before possible. Take this very discussion. I don't see any reason to go to war with you, whoever you are or wherever you live. You seem reasonable enough for there never to be a reason for me to attack you.
The truth is, we don't always even need a reason for war or fights. We can just do it because it's part of our violent nature.


Please elaborate on this. Why the hell are they going to go kick other's asses, or otherwise intentionally start a fight?
I'm going to change my scenario here to something liek this: two tribes live quite near each other. At first they don't even know about each other. Then they discover each other. At first they are alien to each other but after some time they get on good terms. Then Tribe A suddenly hunts on Tribe B's land. B gets pissed off and demands that they get whatever A hunted. A gets pissed off because they hunted it. A and B start to fight.

Or sometimes it can just happen because a charismatic person becomes a leader and makes his tribesmen believe they are supreme. Battles can start as easily as that

Then we ought not to try, right? Even if you don't think so, there are people who would read that, or think that, and think it's pointless to try to improve in any manner. Through the internet, I know people in other countries, I've talked to them, and I've never met the person who thought I should die on principle. This leads me to believe that those people are few are far in between.
I don't mean that we shouldn't try to stop trying to get people the accept difference. However, people are never going to be completely ok with difference. I mean, all of us are prejudiced against something and I would say that everyone hates atleast few types of people.
 
Level 27
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
2,872
I believe you have a bogus sense of human nature if you truly believe that people will somehow exist in harmony forever without any sort of leadership. A leader WILL arise at some point, and the chances are that atleast in a few places particularly violent leaders are born.
That's why I seek to not remove leadership entirely, but rather put people in the state of mind whereby they wont follow a leader to war.
The truth is, we don't always even need a reason for war or fights. We can just do it because it's part of our violent nature.
That's what I'm saying is a bogus human nature. You can look at the most violent acts in history to cite your view, and I can cite everything else, including current everyday life. It's the few who will war, so don't let them have armies to lead.
I'm going to change my scenario here to something liek this: two tribes live quite near each other. At first they don't even know about each other. Then they discover each other. At first they are alien to each other but after some time they get on good terms. Then Tribe A suddenly hunts on Tribe B's land. B gets pissed off and demands that they get whatever A hunted. A gets pissed off because they hunted it. A and B start to fight.
Yeah, and that may have has probably happened numerous times in history, but I'm not seeing that happen in modern civilization.
Or sometimes it can just happen because a charismatic person becomes a leader and makes his tribesmen believe they are supreme.
Violent supremacists are a danger to the rest of us, and as such, should be eliminated. In an anarchy, there is the strong perception that when going against the norm, you go against the whole world. In order for anyone to have a chance at taking over, they must form a nation, and with all the people disagreeing about what type of nation we should have, I don't see that as ever happening once people establish anarchy.
I would say that everyone hates atleast few types of people.
But, with the perception that not everybody shares this hatred, any act you make on behalf of it will be stifled by most everyone.

The perception that racism is a bad thing is much greater and widespread than any racism. Probably greater than all racism combined.
 
Level 4
Joined
Apr 17, 2008
Messages
84
Hakeem said:
That's why I seek to not remove leadership entirely, but rather put people in the state of mind whereby they wont follow a leader to war.

More clarity on this statement! You wish people would have a pacifist state of mind so that they would never go to war? Or just never follow a single person to a war?

Tyranid said:
The truth is, we don't always even need a reason for war or fights. We can just do it because it's part of our violent nature.

There will always be reason for violence.

willthealmighty said:

Until then take a piece of the pie.
 
Level 27
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
2,872
More clarity on this statement! You wish people would have a pacifist state of mind so that they would never go to war? Or just never follow a single person to a war?
People already have a pacifist state of mind. The problem is that they allow their leaders to go to war. The critical difference I hinted on earlier, between current society and the societies that form in the anarchy, is that the anarchic societies will be voluntary. This means that when a leader tries to do something like start a war, people just pull out and the leader is left powerless.
 
Level 11
Joined
Feb 8, 2008
Messages
482
well to stop arguments we could make those smart ppl.... like me... dig underground fallout shelters then nuke the whole world.... it would stop global warming to an extent and would stop everything else aswell... then after say..... 100 years the other ppl can emerge and start again.... and we can grow underground forests with uv lights.... its smart :)
 
Level 11
Joined
Feb 8, 2008
Messages
482
i had a new idea that still involves nukes :)
build fall-out shelters for most ppl in most countries.... then we nukes the world and induce nuclear winter :)

the country that doesnt get fall-out shelters will be decided by the world council....
my opinion is that it will be the asian countries.... NO OFFENCE... but just between them you will need alot of shelters.... but the world council will diecide who dies :(
i dont trust that council....
 
Level 14
Joined
Jan 18, 2008
Messages
956
I wonder if we just can yell "BLASPHEMERS" and start setting people on fire untill we drastically reduce human population, so there are more resources for everyone :D
 
Level 4
Joined
Apr 17, 2008
Messages
84
Fallout III is actually a scientific computer model of what would happen to the human race in case of world wide destruction. Nuclear Wars only lead to super mutants, mass biker gangs, two headed cows, and a free for all over the US equivalent to an Unreal death-match.

What is not to love?
 
Level 24
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
3,406
Do you even know how biomass is converted into energy, how efficient it is, how clean it is, how sustainable it is?
 
Level 12
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
1,193
oh really?

lets say we make 1.5 billion nuclear fusions containing deuterium and tritium, which would create 1.5 billion helium atoms

we can use it for a number of reasons
Helium baloons
Make our voices sound funny
etc etc

but the helium we create is never destroyed. It will exist on earth for as long as we either 1, find a way to make helium into smaller components, or the technology to make larges fusions, or 2, fill large tanks with helium and throw them into space

the only thing that doesnt make this such a big problem is that we would, with fusion technology that works, create so much energy by each fusion that the waste is practically unfearable

its not lies, and its certainly not bs. It might not be a problem, but saying that there is no waste is like saying that indestructible(with our technology) helium has no effect in large quantities
 
Level 11
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
652
we could get lots of baked beans and make alot of people fart... then use that gas for energy... or burn poo and use the fire to heat boilers... and use the smoke from the poo in some form of energy...

Yea thats just stupid and not funny eitehr cause plasma will be the esential power source of the future although solar pannels and wind mills and water dams will all exist and are still and will always be the best actuall sources of power with no harmfull bi products that will cause anydamage to our planet.
 
Top