[HN Gopher] Can men live without war? (1956)
___________________________________________________________________
Can men live without war? (1956)
Author : lermontov
Score : 39 points
Date : 2024-06-19 19:35 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theatlantic.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theatlantic.com)
| hnthrowaway0328 wrote:
| No we cannot. A small percentage of humans are wired with a
| strong territorial mind and/or a greedy personality. It's in the
| gene. Some of them eventually become leaders.
| nyc_data_geek wrote:
| A small percentage of humans can catch some hands and get
| stuffed into lockers by the rest of us who would prefer not to
| be led by them.
| Dr_Birdbrain wrote:
| Problem is, people vote for them :(
| phero_cnstrcts wrote:
| It's not like any of the choices are great. Or even
| mediocre.
| 6510 wrote:
| I had a look one time, there are tons of alternatives (in
| all countries) They all have youtube channels and
| facebook pages.
|
| Beyond the top of the list they have so few viewers,
| subscribers, likes and followers that it doesn't account
| for direct family. It means not even journalists bother
| to watch a video or read a post let alone read the
| election program. Usually there is a single news article
| about a person without much if any coverage of the
| program.
|
| People love to pretend their circular argument is not a
| fallacy.
|
| Plenty of people would bother to look at other candidates
| if they got a lot more attention and a lot more votes.
| Someone will have to start voting for them before that
| will happen.
|
| This someone is you.
|
| If you refuse to vote for a candidate that has no chance
| to win they wont have a chance next time. One extra voice
| or vote is actually a big deal for them.
|
| The search engines are full of articles about "most
| significant candidates"
|
| If you look at this list here,
|
| https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_registered_2024_president
| ial...
|
| You cant say "It's not like any of the choices are
| great."
|
| Correct would be to say: No one in the whole world has
| any idea what the other choices are.
|
| In the US there is a special kind of war to even get on
| the ballot.
|
| https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_registered_2024_president
| ial...
|
| You can help gather signatures, promote write in
| candidates.
|
| I just imagined all those countless election programs
| should be loaded into some LLM, make it question the
| humans and point them to the text that fits them best.
|
| edit:
|
| Ill do one from the top of the list:
|
| Aaron Avouris Libertarian Party
|
| this him?
|
| https://www.facebook.com/aaronavouris
|
| 278 friends
|
| https://www.youtube.com/user/aaronavouris
|
| 2 subscribers?
|
| https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/P00015297/
|
| lol?
|
| edit2:
|
| Because I cant help myself:
|
| vote Afroman
|
| https://www.afromanforpresident.com
| freeone3000 wrote:
| Ah, some sort of large-scale conflict to finally convince
| them that war is bad.
| slillibri wrote:
| To end all wars, one might say.
| xg15 wrote:
| A small percentage of humans are wired with a strong
| territorial mind and/or a greedy personality. A large
| percentage of humans are wired to view those traits as
| favourable and attractive and view such persons as
| charismatic "leaders" to follow and identify with.
|
| My suspicion is, this is in the genes too, and I feel this is
| almost the bigger part of the problem.
| to11mtm wrote:
| The issue observed over millennia, is that if you get rid
| of -all- the greedy people in your land, the greedy person
| in charge of next door sees _opportunity_.
|
| > My suspicion is, this is in the genes too, and I feel
| this is almost the bigger part of the problem.
|
| My more specific suspicion is that some of it is that those
| who can 'go with the flow' are more likely to survive
| various 'cleansing's over the ages, and perhaps in fact the
| most 'opportunistic' (i.e. those that are not -quite-
| megalomania tier) find those opportunities and become that
| sort of 'old money bottom feeder' type.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| Historically that's not what happens
| GeoAtreides wrote:
| > get stuffed into lockers
|
| great way to make bug-controlling supervillains, wouldn't
| recommend it
| Detrytus wrote:
| A small percentage? I would say most of humans, especially
| males, are territorial.
| dymk wrote:
| education / culture issue
| khazhoux wrote:
| Every culture in every corner of the world throughout known
| history.
| rossant wrote:
| This is in our brains. We've evolved over millions of years
| to become like this.
| rhelz wrote:
| I don't know about you guys, but I think my masculinity is
| strong enough to survive the lack of war. I'm just not feeling
| threatened, here.
| Greyfoscam wrote:
| Not feeling threatened is the keyword. Modern society has
| many complacency triggers. Dangerous situation, drive away.
| Feel unsafe, call police. Injured physically or spiritually,
| seek compensation through the law. The interesting question
| is what happens when these safety systems become stagnant and
| less responsive
| to11mtm wrote:
| Especially when other social norms 'get in the way'.
|
| Someone that actually hired me at a past job, at her next
| job wound up hiring someone who performed a very
| intentional set of revenge porn acts on me. [0]
|
| Of course, I dare not speak up on social media, as it would
| impact my ability to find a job in the future. At 'best' I
| would be a drama magnet, at worst claims could be made and
| it would be a mud-slinging fest.
|
| I still have _siblings_ that dislike when I speak up about
| how at my first high school, a starting basketball player
| slammed my head into a locker a half dozen times, I was
| told afterwards that I was not allowed to go to the school
| nurse, with no regard given for anything I slurred post-
| concussion... and that my parents didn 't do anything about
| the injustice because it was a catholic school and mum was
| so catholic she dressed like a nun.
|
| So, I just have to let it sit.
|
| And it all works out, because Carhartt is shit now anyway.
|
| [0] - Which gives me the dubious claim of having someone
| blocking me on LinkedIn, lmao.
| qntmfred wrote:
| very admirable. prepare to be invaded.
| akira2501 wrote:
| Evolution suggests that genes with no strong survival benefit
| are eventually discarded.
| optimalsolver wrote:
| A depressing example of Betteridge's law of headlines.
| rhelz wrote:
| Fascinating article...written not that long after it looked like
| men or anybody else could never live _with_ war again.
|
| But, those fretting about the necessity of war need not have
| worried, as subsequent events proved. War between nuclear powers
| doesn't happen any more, but instead we've had endless proxy
| wars. Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine....
| hkpack wrote:
| > War between nuclear powers doesn't happen any more
|
| It didn't happen yet, but there are no is reasons for nuclear
| war to be avoided indefinitely.
| ryandrake wrote:
| All it takes is one madman to get near the button and gain
| enough power that his button-press is honored. It almost
| seems inevitable given a long enough time frame.
| apantel wrote:
| On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone
| drops to zero.
| openasocket wrote:
| We've had at least one war between nuclear powers off the top
| of my head. The Kargil war of 1999 between India and Pakistan,
| I believe both sides had nuclear weapons deployed at the time.
|
| EDIT: also the Sino-soviet war of 1969
| doubloon wrote:
| half of those are not proxy wars in any way shape or form.
| apantel wrote:
| In the era of the atomic bomb, conventional war no longer
| takes place directly between tier 1 (nuclear) powers because
| the rulers can't have that. The rulers on both sides
| ultimately want to enjoy their wealth and power. They want to
| go to the brothel at the end of the day. So they won't risk
| getting into a nuclear war. This is even truer in the era of
| Globalism where enjoying wealth and power generally means
| enjoying the benefits of the global supply chain: yachts,
| supercars, travel, exotic imports, etc. A nuclear war would
| disrupt all that. It would make being an oligarch a lot less
| fun, so they will generally avoid messing with the world at
| that level. Finally, in the era of the atomic bomb,
| conventional warfare (sending your tanks and battleships
| against your enemy) is obsolete for tier 1 powers. If you are
| a tier 1 power and another tier 1 power starts sending tanks
| your way, you send off one nuke to nuke all the tanks.
| Conventional warfare is not obsolete for tier 2 powers since
| it's all they have. A tier 2 power battling it out in
| conventional warfare against another tier 2 power means
| something. Conventional warfare means very little to tier 1
| powers. Tier 1 and tier 2 powers play by completely different
| rules.
|
| As a result, conventional war only takes place now on tier 2
| (non-nuclear) lands. If there are sabers to be rattled
| between two tier 1 powers, the rattling will happen on tier 2
| land, usually with tier 2 powers being the primary warring
| parties (proxy war). You also see tier 1 powers making the
| occasional move but always against tier 2 powers only, e.g.
| Russia -> Ukraine. If Ukraine had nukes there would be no war
| in Ukraine. Notice how it's war IN Ukraine: on tier 2 land.
| If Ukraine managed to make it a war IN Russia, they'd be
| nuked to oblivion.
| jokoon wrote:
| In an ideal future, firearms would be banned worldwide.
|
| A body like interpol would investigate the entire world, to
| surveil if anybody is trying to make firearms.
|
| People would make bows and spears, but it would be more difficult
| to conduct war.
|
| It would not make war and violence impossible, but it would
| certainly be a better world.
|
| EDIT: lots of pedants:
|
| obviously there would be an joint army answering to an
| international body whose only mission is to seize and destroy
| weapons.
|
| firearms includes bombs and other lethal ammunition, of course.
| Not knives.
| k8sToGo wrote:
| And those who will master creating weapons in the shadows will
| overthrow interpol and rule mankind.
|
| I'd say in an ideal future humans wouldn't _want_ to create
| weapons.
| ses1984 wrote:
| And those who _want_ to make weapons will overthrow the
| people who don't...
|
| But in an ideal future...?
| Loughla wrote:
| But who watches the watchers? Not everyone has a guarding dark.
| Greyfoscam wrote:
| It would certainly be more interesting conducting war with semi
| auto potato cannons
| akira2501 wrote:
| > In an ideal future, firearms would be banned worldwide.
|
| But not bombs, knives, chemicals or sources of radiation?
|
| Well.. good luck.
| Aerroon wrote:
| If you aren't physically strong enough to defend yourself then
| you shouldn't be able to defend yourself?
| squigz wrote:
| Why would they make bows and spears, but not guns? That seems a
| fairly arbitrary technological line to draw.
| sparky_z wrote:
| After Interpol's surveillance determined that someone was
| illegally making firearms, what would happen next? Presumably
| some sort of enforcement to stop them? How would that
| enforcement be conducted?
| whall6 wrote:
| Mergers and acquisitions have taken the place of war in the
| modern era.
| mojifwisi wrote:
| Quite an odd comment to make in the midst of the Ukraine war,
| another war between Israel and Palestine, and the ongoing civil
| wars in Sudan and Burma.
| qntmfred wrote:
| it's all relative. the order of operations is M&A, diplomacy,
| warfare.
| graeme wrote:
| The thing is without force your stuff gets taken. We haven't got
| a good way around this. Our current peace is heavily based on
| nuclear weapons and the implied threat of force.
|
| Don't like the status quo? Use force to try to change it.
|
| Do like the status quo? Use force to try to keep it that way.
|
| We don't have a stable equiliubrium where no force exists in the
| system. Many in this thread effectively say "You can do what you
| like, but _I_ am above using force ".
|
| They can say that because their existence is secured by the force
| of others. There are enough people willing to take by force that
| if you have no force your stuff and land get taken.
|
| This was how the world worked for all of human history until
| 1945. The only thing that changed it was nukes, the ultimate
| force.
|
| In theory you could have a global government with a monopoly on
| force that enforced no more war. But that still depends on force.
|
| Is there any convincing argument for getting out of this
| equilibrium?
| js8 wrote:
| You have a nice theory there, would be a shame if something
| happened to it.
|
| I played this older computer civilization-like space game. In
| it, there was an hyperaggressive race that always went to war
| with everybody. They always died out first.
|
| I think conflict will always exist, but violence? I am not
| sure. I think it comes down to availability of information.
| People don't like a*holes. Once world becomes a global village,
| and almost everyone will run a SW on their phone that keeps
| tabs on other 8 billion people, starting a war will become
| nearly impossible.
| HenryBemis wrote:
| If Rebel Moon and the Demolition Man taught us anything, is
| that even when 8bn people will be spied upon, there will be
| some that will object this and fight it tooth and nail.
|
| (Oh and History teaches that)
| okasaki wrote:
| Why doesn't Texas wage war on Oklahoma?
| antisthenes wrote:
| There is enough stuff (goods) in both Texas and Oklahoma
| where going to war would make people there worse off.
|
| If I can go to war with Oklahoma and get a 2nd/3rd car, when
| I already own a car, why would I risk losing my life? I can't
| drive 2 cars at once.
| lupusreal wrote:
| Texas tried waging war on other states before, and they were
| stopped by the Federal government wielding superior force.
|
| You know that guy on five dollar bills? He was involved.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > and land get taken.
|
| It's always land. This is because land is scarce. You can keep
| things that aren't scarce without force.
|
| > Is there any convincing argument for getting out of this
| equilibrium?
|
| The total destruction of artificial scarcity?
| imtringued wrote:
| Consider it an economic problem. War costs money, therefore war
| will be conducted when its benefits exceed its costs. What
| makes war profitable? For that you need to know the benefits of
| war. The most obvious benefit is the changing of borders and
| conquering of new land. Now you might say that it always makes
| sense for a country to try to conquer the enire world, because
| having the land grants you access to its riches for free, but
| then you have to consider the costs of war too.
|
| The cost of conquering land and managing it yourself must be
| cheaper than letting the other country manage the land and
| production process and then importing the goods you want.
|
| The cost of conquering the land can be split into two parts.
| First, the initial offensive representing capex and the ongoing
| defense costs against attackers represent opex. If it turns out
| that the foreign country is both fleecing you on imports and is
| spending less in defense per acre than you would, if you
| managed the land, it would be profitable for you to conquer the
| land and install a defense force that spends more to protect
| the same plot of land. Since your spending budget is higher per
| acre, the original country would lose if they tried to recover
| the territory.
|
| Now consider the opposite scenario. The original country does
| not fleece you on imports and has a lean army. Then it would
| not be profitable for you to conquer the land, since you have
| higher opex and the benefit is insignificant.
|
| Of course none of this stops crazy dictators from attempting
| world domination, but it can tell you that on average, people
| should be uninterested in war.
| lovecg wrote:
| It's interesting that the relative costs of offense vs.
| defense vary with technological development. In the middle
| ages when castles existed but guns did not, and societal
| structure was such that mounting enormous besieging armies of
| antiquity was not possible, the borders mostly stayed intact.
| It's possible we're entering something similar judging by the
| drone war in Ukraine which seems to heavily favor defense.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Only a matter of time until semi-autonomous hunter killer
| drones are perfected for mass deployment.
| squigz wrote:
| I think one of the most obvious, major benefits of war is the
| trillions of dollars that's put into the military-industrial
| complex every year. Whether war actually breaks out is
| irrelevant, if the interests involved can make people believe
| it's always inevitable, so let's keep pumping money into it.
| lovecg wrote:
| And people are slowly testing the limits of the nuke deterrent.
| Turns out everyone is really hesitant to use them especially
| when the aggressor has nukes too.
| ocschwar wrote:
| 1945 gave us a way out of this equilibrium.
|
| Not the nukes. The Bretton Woods principles. It was not a
| kumbayah exchange of platitudes. It was an agreement to let
| things be settled in the free market.
|
| Want more oil from Nigeria? Offer them more money than the
| other buyers. Want to fish the waters around Tuvalu? Radio them
| and offer more money. Want Congolese cobalt? Same idea.
|
| This was the brainchild of John Maynard Keynes, not Ayn Rand.
| It was not a matter of market fetishism. It was based on the
| sensible idea that the market place is a better way to settle
| these things than the battlefield, something even a Marxist
| should be willing to admit.
|
| That could have brought us to a world wide peace in 1945, but
| only the First World went along with this idea. The Second
| World rallied around endless revolution and war until we get a
| worker's paradise. And the Third World tried to stay out
| altogether. (Reminder: by the original definition, Switzerland
| was in the Third World).
|
| We had another chance in 1989. And we blew it.
|
| Now we can try again.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| That doesn't make sense.
|
| > _Want more oil from Nigeria? Offer them more money than the
| other buyers._
|
| How about I offer them some lead to sweeten the deal? As in,
| take my lower offer _or else_?
|
| > _Want to fish the waters around Tuvalu? Radio them and
| offer more money._
|
| Or I'll just go fishing because what ever Tuvalu can do to
| me?
|
| > _Want Congolese cobalt? Same idea._
|
| The idea works when the players have no better choice than to
| play by the market rules, win or lose. At small scale, most
| people figure it's better to lose the deal than be thrown
| into jail for being _extra convincing_ - but this is only
| possible because of a legal and enforcement system that 's
| stronger than any individual or group. At larger,
| international scale, nukes provide a backstop that keeps
| everyone in check, by keeping total war absurdly expensive
| for everyone.
|
| > _It was based on the sensible idea that the market place is
| a better way to settle these things than the battlefield,
| something even a Marxist should be willing to admit._
|
| The market will tell you that peaceful solution is only
| better if the war is _really expensive_. Large power
| imbalance can easily make war the cheaper option.
|
| In general, any solution that requires people to _just go
| along with it_ is doomed to failure - someone eventually will
| figure it 's in their benefit to defect. Stable solutions are
| ones that, by design, align with default human behavior. Like
| MAD.
|
| Worth also mentioning that there isn't just "war" and
| "peace", except in international laws. Soldiers on the ground
| are just the realization of threats of use of force, which
| themselves are a last-ditch diplomatic technique. There are
| other such techniques - sanctions, for example, are just as
| brutal as war. All that is implied in international
| negotiations, not invoked explicitly unless parties can't
| reach a reasonable agreement without threats of violence.
| doubloon wrote:
| The whole thing is assuming that men drive progress and war
| drives progress, and both of those things are debatable.
| cassianoleal wrote:
| > men drive progress and war drives progress, and both of those
| things are debatable
|
| I'm fairly confident that the progress mentioned in the article
| is meant as technological and maybe social progress. How would
| either of those happen without being driven by humans, or
| another hypothetical technological species?
|
| In terms of war, I don't see how it's debatable. It may not be
| the only driver but it's definitely a strong one. It may not be
| progress towards something you (or I) desire but it's progress
| nonetheless.
| openrisk wrote:
| When a child is born there is nothing remotely resembling large
| scale warfare inscribed in its genes and the discretional
| cultural path that must be travelled before such detrimental
| collective phenomena come to be seen as innate and inevitable is
| enormous.
|
| Our predicament in relation to our war "habit" is similar to many
| other challenges we are facing: malignant social patterns that
| got established before a succession of dramatic technological
| recolutions are now mutating into existential risks.
|
| It is anybody's guess how things will play out. Cultural
| evolution is our superpower but we are not exactly in control of
| it. We still in a transition zone where old moralities feel
| secure in their "it was ever thus" denial.
|
| It is conceivable that we'll outgrow this phase and survive. A
| pacified humanity is not utopic, its the only solution to a long
| term sustainable existence. We thus might work backwards from
| what we know is the only meaningful endgame and see what it takes
| to get there.
|
| But we might also implode before we solve that.
| gotoeleven wrote:
| Your ancestors are the ones that won wars in the past. Inasmuch
| as warfare can be "inscribed" in genes, it definitely is.
| kikokikokiko wrote:
| Even purely instinct based animals, like chimps amd lions,
| engage in war between groups. A human child is still a primate,
| and no ammount of cultural bs will make your assumption of
| purity at birth a reality. Life is, in all it's forms, a war
| between organisms to see who can get more resources. Life is
| war, unfortunately.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-06-22 23:01 UTC)