What's your solution to end all wars?
What are your ideas, that if you could implement would likely stop our species from warring so much?
I'm asking for a reasonable ones, but if not - at least make them funny :P
What are your ideas, that if you could implement would likely stop our species from warring so much?
I'm asking for a reasonable ones, but if not - at least make them funny :P
Restructure society to value cooperatation over competition.
Break down unjustifiable hierarchies where possible and reasonable. The flatter the power structure is without sacrificing much in the way of efficiency, the better.
I feel like this is the way. It's more or less the idea with the EU, and I would say it's working great. I just hope this level of cooperation reaches the whole world
This is something my old history teacher once mentioned: we have games like COD and other esports titles. Just have all conflicts resolved via virtual combat instead of in real world violence
The equivalent to someone losing and breaking their controller in this scenario is them invading the other country.
Yeah, now instead of a controller launched at an expensive TV after rage-quitting, you've got ICBMs flying after Biden gets Putin with the Last Stand + Martyrdom perk combo.
Mass extinction event. Breed out aggression from our species we seem to be doing that but slowly. Space mining could potentially stop us from having war in Earth at least. AI takeover have everyone live on their own virtual reality paradise. For the most reasonable I think the best way to end wars is education and uplifting poverty nations not exploit them.
Edit: Or we can just be like Switzerland be a direct democracy, with how slow they decide things it will be highly unlikely to go to war at all.
Make everyone bulletproof and bombproof. If it is no longer possible to kill people using weapons of war, then there will no longer be a point to fighting the wars. Either that, or things will escalate to a point where it is no longer sustainable to fight wars that way, also solving it. Mind control, or gelatinising everyone into a singular hivemind is also an option.
Somewhat more realistically, I think that exchanges and the internet are the ways to go when it comes to ending wars. It's a lot harder to fight wars when you can empathise with the other side, and see them as your peers. It's one of the reasons why soldiers who took part in the Christmas Armistice were shuffled around, since they became friendly during the ceasefire, and would be less wanting to fire weapons on the friends that they made.
A lot of wars tend to centre around dehumnaising the other side, and treating them as the "enemy". Allowing people to co-operate and communicate mutually makes it a lot harder for that to take place, since you have experience with the "enemy", they're not that bad. You've even got friends there, and training a gun on them with the expectation and desire to turn them into a corpse is just not on.
Allowing people to co-operate and communicate mutually makes it a lot harder for that to take place, since you have experience with the “enemy”, they’re not that bad.
That's why I believe Esperanto, while evidently not enough by itself, is a necessary tool in the fight for world peace.
I agree with genetics engineering as the answer.
Our DNA has greed, power tripping, paranoia etc. hard coded somewhere. The correct combinations might stop all wars.
But all in all, wouldn't it make humanity dull and unsatisfied? I wonder.
What if we genetically engineered ourselves to make beans taste like lasagna and kindness feel as satisfying as getting a promotion?
I'd argue that humanity is humanity and we wouldn't remove its complex emotions, philosophical wonders and existential dread.
Desire for more out of life, search of meaning, etc.
Unless we go all the way and engineer ever flowing euphoria from birth to death, for everyone. But then, what's even the point?
Eugenics is often conflated with "selective breeding", which is pretty justified, given all the derives from the twentieth century.
Today, whether we should include CRISPR and so under the umbrella of eugenics is still open for debate.
The term of Transhumanism may be more relevant in this specific topic, as for Wikipedia's definition,
Transhumanism is a philosophical and intellectual movement which advocates the enhancement of the human condition by developing and making widely available sophisticated technologies that can greatly enhance longevity and cognition.
On a personal note I think that all in all, defining what are the " good genes to add, remove, or keep" in the human pool is definitely a delicate matter, 100% biased by our cultural differences and steps fully in the endless philosophical field.
Yeah, I'm with this guy
I think if we had someone with charisma start a suicide cult, things would generally improve... I'm Trevor to make a Joe gRogan joke, but I'm actually at least half-serious
Very easy. Global thermonuclear war. That should make sure that the remaining humans (if any) don't need to fight over resources for at least a few generations.
I bet I could convince you that there are no winners in global thermonuclear war with just 1000 games of tic tac toe.
You're delusional if you think we wouldn't be at each other's troaths over those last resources.
Yeah, most wars are about resources so becoming a post-scarcity would go a long way.
Although it did take them at least one apocalypse, alien intervention, and 200 - 300 years before they actually got around to it.
That would probably create more reasons for people/groups to go to war with each other than it eliminates.
And who decides who has to produce those goods for everyone? Also who decides who gets how much? ... Probably some kind of war. :)
And when groups of people make up their own currency and start gambling and trading to build up underground empires?
There is no solution to that. It is a cold, hard reality of living on a planet with limited resources. We all might hate war (and for good reason, obviously), but it isn't like animals don't fight for territory either. Just happens that humans found a way to make it a few orders of magnitude more extreme.
Make those who declare war to actually fight the war. Put the two countries president on each side of an arena with some swords to fight to death, the one who lives wins the war. I'd record and pay pee view or something and the money raised would pay for homes for the poor in each country
Education for everyone globally. War is, like all kinds of violence, an act or reaction of impotence (psychological term/not sexual).
It basically means nobody actually chooses to act violently or start wars. They do it because they believe consciously or subconsciously that they have no other options, because they can't think of any options.
This is always a wrong assumption, because there is always a better option. The difficult part is to getting people to understand their actual options. Education solves this.
No. I think Putin started the war because he was already threatened by the economy and domestic rivalry. It's not like he woke up one morning and thought it was a good idea to kill a lot of people. In his head it was the right thing to do for some reason, probably something involving saving his own ass.
He was able to gather some support for this horrible idea because there are many uneducated Russian voters who actually believe that the war has a purpose.
If they had been educated, he would not have had support.
I agree education is an importante part of the solution. But by itself it cannot be: many people who start wars are highly educated, intelligent individuals. There are many examples, both in old and in modern history.
When there's no war, people like Hitler won't have any opposition to their rise to power. Haiti never gains independence. We'd never have escaped feudalism.
Most wars are stupid bullshit and suck ass. The military, especially the US military, is the biggest waste of money ever. That doesn't mean that war isn't directly tied to lots of positive things like innovation. There's so much medical, industrial, and geographical knowledge we wouldn't have if it wasn't for some war, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. People's ideas will always conflict because different groups of people are going to have goals unique to them that clash with others
Now if you were to ask how to stop unnecessary wars, better more efficient rulers. Most of the people in power today are complete hacks. It's crazy
But I don't think we'll ever get rid of war and I don't know if that's necessarily that crazy? Ultimately it's apart of how we grow as societies
Democracies rarely go to war with each other. Add mutual economical dependency to that and you have a strong base to avoid armed conflict. The EU is a good example for that.
/worries and stares in American Freedom
The nanny state and ridiculously high level of market protectionism bullshit under the guise of regulation that the EU throws around gets a bit too authoritarian for me to blanket accept as a Global system, where the big players will just run shit anyway (China, US, India) if the system created is a fair democracy based on population representation. Although it would be nice to have proper universal health care services, universal social welfare services, and open and free education services for everyone.
Or am I off base with this assessment and not knowing enough about the EU structure to understand how it could be effective on a global scale in the face of global scales of corruption?
It would take AI levels of control to avoid corruption, but the AI itself could and would be corrupted or just simply tricked at every opportunity.
There is this dystopia anime series called From the New World. The premise is a portion of humanity gained psychic power and led to the collapse of society because it's so powerful that order could not be enforced. Far into the future there's a cluster of communities that's able to exist, and the way they went about it was to genetically engineered humans so when they harm another human it triggers body functions that make it harder for them to breath and other things. Killing another human also kills the aggressor. It kind of works on the interpretative level so it's possible that using drones could still have an effect, probably.
Even in the story they explored ways to circumvent it though, but that's kind of a tangent.
Eradicate fear.
Fear of losing power. Fear of "them". Fear of going to hell because you didn't convert someone. Fear of lost resources.
It all boils down to fear. The problem is that fear is contagious. It's easier to convince someone to back your side if you make them afraid vs hopeful.
You face it, permit it to pass over you and through you. And when it has gone past you turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only you will remain.
/S, I'm just hype about the new dune trailer.
I wish I had an answer to that. For me, it's knowledge and recognition. Having an open mind to hear both sides of an argument and trying to focus on facts, not "what ifs". Then paying attention to not just what's being said, but how it's being said. It's pretty easy to see when someone is trying to get you emotional rather than logical,but you have to be looking for it.
When I hear a politician say "they're trying to take away...." or "they want you to...". That's them trying to make you fear the other side. I don't give a shit if you're left, right, capitalist, communist, or a dictator, if you're goal is to make me fear what the other side will do with power then you've already lost me. Because I know, that really you're afraid to lose power and so you make other people afraid too. Unfortunately, it works for way too many people.