How to end wars and create peace on the planet
13 Feb 2010, 4:01 pm
It is impossible for the funds acquired by small states, fractions of today's nations, to finance wars of today's magnitude.
There will only be conflicts, in which neighbors could be able to isolate the oppressor and not only prevent other conflicts but make the oppressor reform itself.
Wars are possible thanks to the funds acquired by a central govt that is able to tax a large amount of people.
Through wars these empires expand and grow. When they grow they are able to make more wars with more ease. A vicious cycle that must be stopped with secession from federal/central govts.
I wonder why you keep insisting on this fantasy. It's not going to happen.
What makes it a fantasy?
How do you know it is not going to happen?
Are you kidding? Some of the most vicious and genocidal conflicts have been "small states" having at each other. The Balkans are a classic example. The numerous african conflicts are another. Creating small states isnt a fantasy.. they have existed for years.. expecting them to be less warlike is.
It is intellectually dishonest to use examples like these to discredit the people who want their independence from tyrannical governments.
Specially when these examples denote a group of people trying to take over the land of other people using violence. I do not propose that.
All I'm saying is lets decentralize power because too much power on a few hands proves to cause corruption.
If you believe that power centralization is a good thing, promote it, but admit that violence must be used to keep power in the hands of a few.
Being for decentralizing power is fine as long as you are willing to dispense with peace,but not if you seek to promote peace.
Claiiming that decentralizing power into small local units inherintly promotes peace is the exact opposite of the truth.
As a general rule Centralization promotes peace, Decentralization promotes war. Thats the whole history of the human race.
Europe, North Africa, and the Mideast, were all at peace under the Pax Romana of the Roman Empire. Those regions have never known a moment of peace since the fall of Rome.
The vast Indian Subcontinent was at peace under the British Raj from 1856 until 1947. But in 1947 India and Pakistan won independence from the British Empire, and the two nations have fought three wars since then, and continue to be in constant tension are now in a nuclear arms race.
Africa was owned by essentialy two colonial powers- Britian and France, for a centurey.
The conitinent was divied up between just two global empires.
Since you cant fight when you're in a straight jacket -Africa was at peace during this time.
Today Africa is composed of some fifty soveriegn and independant states.
The good thing is Africans get to run their own countries. But giving power to the locals far from promoting peace it abolished peace. African nations are constantly at war with each other and have civil wars within- including herendous episodes of genocide.
At best decentralizaion causes humans to fight small but frequent wars. At worst centralization causes fewer but bigger wars. But you get longer periods of peace with centralizating of power over larger areas and larger poplulations. Decentralization just causes constant petty feuding among local power magnants (which is why its called feudalism).
13 Feb 2010, 4:07 pm
My rule:
Treat others the way you would want to be treated.
Do I follow it? Most of the time I do, but not always. How can I abide by this rule more?
I will never do that.
13 Feb 2010, 8:04 pm
It is impossible for the funds acquired by small states, fractions of today's nations, to finance wars of today's magnitude.
There will only be conflicts, in which neighbors could be able to isolate the oppressor and not only prevent other conflicts but make the oppressor reform itself.
Wars are possible thanks to the funds acquired by a central govt that is able to tax a large amount of people.
Through wars these empires expand and grow. When they grow they are able to make more wars with more ease. A vicious cycle that must be stopped with secession from federal/central govts.
ASPER, you might like to read up on history sometime. Or, if that's too much work, just watch this video which will explain to you that violence and war is actually much rarer (and much less deadly) in modern society, dominated by large centralized governments, then it was in previous ages with smaller states and a more decentralized power structure.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
14 Feb 2010, 1:43 pm
Around 1930 Will Rogers said "No nation should be allowed to start a war until its paid for the last one."
If enforcible that would indeed go a long way towards promoting peace.
( The US itsself wouldnt be able to interevene in any foriegn adventures until our grandchildren finish paying for Iraq and Afganistan).
14 Feb 2010, 3:04 pm
Laws weren't a matter of intentional creation, Sand. If you'll notice, a major part of early humanity is the notion to believe that it's laws are from above, such as from the gods and so on, and most likely all of our early codes of law were just written out versions of pre-existing legal-ish norms. So, really notions of a "conference" about laws seems a bit ridiculous.
That being said, we still have a lot of rapes and a lot of murders, so your attempt at wit is still irrelevant.
Gingersnaps
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2009
Age: 77
Gender: Female
Posts: 57
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
14 Feb 2010, 4:56 pm
I think we need a law that says we must treat every body like an oddball aspie. Then everybody would feel rejected and alienated and withdraw into the isolation of their homes without people contact, making conflict, let alone war, impossible. Not to mention that would solve the problem of overpopulation and fighting for overcrowding. Everybody would be so isolated, they wouldn't be reproducing, then we all died off:. No people= no wars. The earth (at least the plants and animals) would finally know peace.
ValMikeSmith
Veteran
Joined: 18 May 2008
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 977
Location: Stranger in a strange land
19 Feb 2010, 11:34 am
I think that human beings are an important part of nature and that there is
something in the air that has poisoned both us and nature so that neither
we nor anything else can have peace. There may be a word for it that we
do not know, making it hard to understand what I am talking about. It
might be described as a law, but a self-enforcing one, like the law of gravity.
The self-enforcing law itself is broken though. Like the way gravity keeps
us on the ground but allows flying in the air, what I am talking about affects
all of nature, has already unbalanced everything, and its effects cause
war, disease, ... affect everything in a bad way like poison. It is probably
undetected because it may be negative or neutral, a lack of something
that is necessary. It is not a pollution in other words, but a deficiency.
To try to get an idea, think of Mars. It used to have oceans and rivers.
Now it doesn't. Its atmosphere is wrong, and the water doesn't flow
because it is frozen and covered in dust. The mars rover scooped up
ice cubes and they dried up without melting. Mars air is no longer working
right for the water to melt and flow in the rivers. What I am saying that
the air on earth is wrong and nature is sick from it, and people make
war because they are sick from the wrong air, and the wrongness of the
air is worse than the hole in the ozone layer and global warming because
nature is starving and people are starving not because of people but
because the air is bad, sickening poison to life on this planet in a way
we don't know and nobody remembers. Mars remembers its rivers,
but the laws of physics say Mars air is not good for rivers. Earth
wants its natural harmony but doesn't remember good air, and
the whole planet suffers from the lack of good air, and both people
and animals are violently sick from bad air. The air isn't polluted by
war, its deprived of peace. The peace is poisoned, like Mars rivers
are poisoned. The "law of evil and death" is a little known concept
because those words are rarely used, but those words are used,
and on Mars we could say there is a "law of no rivers" that wasn't
always there, it is because of the bad air. In a brighter future, in
one of the many possible worlds, Mars and Earth get good air again,
and Mars has rivers, and Earth has peace. The air pressure is wrong.
The elements are wrong. Its much worse than pollution. Evil is the
lack of good air, evil is caused by bad air. The bad air poisoned the
deserts. The bad air lets trees burn in the forest, because the good
air is too wet for that much fire. Dinosaurs grew huge because of
good air. They don't anymore because they couldn't live in bad air.
Nature was at peace in the good air, and the whole world was green,
and there were tropical plants in Antarctica because nothing froze
in the good air. The good air was wet and heavy but it never rained
or snowed. The law of physics, not the law of police, made different
healthy weather in good air. The law of physics made the bad air
wet and light, dry and heavy, but good air is heavier and wetter,
and has something the whole earth needs to be healthy, that we
don't know about. The good air must have been neutral, not
oxidizing. It was wet and had more free hydrogen and oxygen but
something prevented fire... either so much water or something else
we don't know about. With the good air, radiation from space didn't
cause aging. All the water in the air absorbed it better than ozone
does, and something prevented hydrogen from exploding.
That was my original good air theory... That the missing part of
the atmosphere was hydrogen, which somehow didn't explode,
and even mixed with water, to make fountains of youth.
But there had to be more oxygen too, and more water, and no fire,
rain, or snow. There had to be more air pressure and a lot of water
mixed with air, and lots of air and oxygen and hydrogen in water.
The good air made things live long healthy lives, and made people
really feel alive, all life was healthy and at least for people, being
alive always felt really good, in the good air. It was impossible to
hate and fight and make war in good air. I HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY:
Lets pretend that in Mexico's drug war, a huge farm of opium and
pot caught on fire. The smoke full of drugs made the army calm
down and feel good, so they didn't feel like killing each other. That
is silly, but it explains why in the bad air theory, war is caused by
bad air, and nobody would kill anyone in good air because it is
something people only do because the bad air made them sick
enough to want to kill each other. Air isn't drugs. Air is needed
to live. I mentioned drugs as an example to explain how the air is evil.
In a bar, people sometimes get drunk and start fights. I've heard
people say that you can't get high and fight. Insane serial killers
totally calm down when they are given tranquilizers in the looney bin.
But "good air" makes everything healthy and grow, bad air is not as good
and I believe that war is a side effect of bad air, and deserts
are a side effect of bad air, and all of nature is sick because
of this air that's so bad that we didn't cause it with pollution,
but it makes all the difference between all the evil we are used to
seeing on this planet and Paradise.
It made all the difference on Mars between rivers and dust covered ice.
We obviously did not pollute Mars air and freeze all of its water.
The bad air came from the asteroid belt when a planet blew up.
It was a catastrophic disaster. Maybe Martians nuked it (LOL).
BTW the name "MARS" means "WAR". This paragraph is silly though.
This is my own personal theory about why life on earth isn't perfect.
I have thought about it since the day I noticed that ... things are bad here.
I asked Why. I said it should be fixed. I asked How. Nobody knew.
19 Feb 2010, 11:48 am
something in the air that has poisoned both us and nature so that neither
we nor anything else can have peace. There may be a word for it that we
do not know, making it hard to understand what I am talking about. It
might be described as a law, but a self-enforcing one, like the law of gravity.
The self-enforcing law itself is broken though. Like the way gravity keeps
us on the ground but allows flying in the air, what I am talking about affects
all of nature, has already unbalanced everything, and its effects cause
war, disease, ... affect everything in a bad way like poison. It is probably
undetected because it may be negative or neutral, a lack of something
that is necessary. It is not a pollution in other words, but a deficiency.
To try to get an idea, think of Mars. It used to have oceans and rivers.
Now it doesn't. Its atmosphere is wrong, and the water doesn't flow
because it is frozen and covered in dust. The mars rover scooped up
ice cubes and they dried up without melting. Mars air is no longer working
right for the water to melt and flow in the rivers. What I am saying that
the air on earth is wrong and nature is sick from it, and people make
war because they are sick from the wrong air, and the wrongness of the
air is worse than the hole in the ozone layer and global warming because
nature is starving and people are starving not because of people but
because the air is bad, sickening poison to life on this planet in a way
we don't know and nobody remembers. Mars remembers its rivers,
but the laws of physics say Mars air is not good for rivers. Earth
wants its natural harmony but doesn't remember good air, and
the whole planet suffers from the lack of good air, and both people
and animals are violently sick from bad air. The air isn't polluted by
war, its deprived of peace. The peace is poisoned, like Mars rivers
are poisoned. The "law of evil and death" is a little known concept
because those words are rarely used, but those words are used,
and on Mars we could say there is a "law of no rivers" that wasn't
always there, it is because of the bad air. In a brighter future, in
one of the many possible worlds, Mars and Earth get good air again,
and Mars has rivers, and Earth has peace. The air pressure is wrong.
The elements are wrong. Its much worse than pollution. Evil is the
lack of good air, evil is caused by bad air. The bad air poisoned the
deserts. The bad air lets trees burn in the forest, because the good
air is too wet for that much fire. Dinosaurs grew huge because of
good air. They don't anymore because they couldn't live in bad air.
Nature was at peace in the good air, and the whole world was green,
and there were tropical plants in Antarctica because nothing froze
in the good air. The good air was wet and heavy but it never rained
or snowed. The law of physics, not the law of police, made different
healthy weather in good air. The law of physics made the bad air
wet and light, dry and heavy, but good air is heavier and wetter,
and has something the whole earth needs to be healthy, that we
don't know about. The good air must have been neutral, not
oxidizing. It was wet and had more free hydrogen and oxygen but
something prevented fire... either so much water or something else
we don't know about. With the good air, radiation from space didn't
cause aging. All the water in the air absorbed it better than ozone
does, and something prevented hydrogen from exploding.
That was my original good air theory... That the missing part of
the atmosphere was hydrogen, which somehow didn't explode,
and even mixed with water, to make fountains of youth.
But there had to be more oxygen too, and more water, and no fire,
rain, or snow. There had to be more air pressure and a lot of water
mixed with air, and lots of air and oxygen and hydrogen in water.
The good air made things live long healthy lives, and made people
really feel alive, all life was healthy and at least for people, being
alive always felt really good, in the good air. It was impossible to
hate and fight and make war in good air. I HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY:
Lets pretend that in Mexico's drug war, a huge farm of opium and
pot caught on fire. The smoke full of drugs made the army calm
down and feel good, so they didn't feel like killing each other. That
is silly, but it explains why in the bad air theory, war is caused by
bad air, and nobody would kill anyone in good air because it is
something people only do because the bad air made them sick
enough to want to kill each other. Air isn't drugs. Air is needed
to live. I mentioned drugs as an example to explain how the air is evil.
In a bar, people sometimes get drunk and start fights. I've heard
people say that you can't get high and fight. Insane serial killers
totally calm down when they are given tranquilizers in the looney bin.
But "good air" makes everything healthy and grow, bad air is not as good
and I believe that war is a side effect of bad air, and deserts
are a side effect of bad air, and all of nature is sick because
of this air that's so bad that we didn't cause it with pollution,
but it makes all the difference between all the evil we are used to
seeing on this planet and Paradise.
It made all the difference on Mars between rivers and dust covered ice.
We obviously did not pollute Mars air and freeze all of its water.
The bad air came from the asteroid belt when a planet blew up.
It was a catastrophic disaster. Maybe Martians nuked it (LOL).
BTW the name "MARS" means "WAR". This paragraph is silly though.
This is my own personal theory about why life on earth isn't perfect.
I have thought about it since the day I noticed that ... things are bad here.
I asked Why. I said it should be fixed. I asked How. Nobody knew.
This most amusing assumption that the universe gives a damn about human evaluations of the ecology of other planets and how it might be comfortable for humans is one of the most weird anthropocentric statements I have ever seen. That Mars is uncomfortable for humans or that space itself is so terribly deadly to human and most other life is the way things are and we have to swallow it and do our best not to totally screw up the only place in the solar system where life is reasonably comfortable.There is nothing inevitable about any of it.
Last edited by Sand on 20 Feb 2010, 12:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
ValMikeSmith
Veteran
Joined: 18 May 2008
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 977
Location: Stranger in a strange land
19 Feb 2010, 12:40 pm
This most amusing assumption that the universe gives a damn about human evaluations of the ecology of other planets and how it might be comfortable for humans is one of the most weird anthropocentric statements I have ever seen. That Mars is uncomfortable for humans or that space itself is so terribly deadly to human and most other life is the way things are and we have to swallow it and do our best not to totally screw up the only place in the solar system where life is reasonably comfortable.There is nothing inevitable about any of it.
The point is that both Earth and Mars are broken,
That Human Beings are part of nature, not separate,
And that Mars was obviously once NOT broken,
And that Both Human Beings and Nature are broken but once were not,
as Mars obviously once was not.
Or more simply, Nature would be more broken if Human Beings were extinct,
as much as it was when anything else became extinct,
whether Human Beings made it extinct or natural disasters did.
And, Human Beings want peace but make war.
So that is obviously a broken process, when good turns into evil.
I merely made a theory of what is broken, not just human beings,
but also nature and the earth, probably because of the damage to the atmosphere
which also broke Mars so its rivers all froze and cannot possibly melt and flow
in Mars broken atmosphere anymore.
ValMikeSmith
Veteran
Joined: 18 May 2008
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 977
Location: Stranger in a strange land
19 Feb 2010, 12:41 pm
This most amusing assumption that the universe gives a damn about human evaluations of the ecology of other planets and how it might be comfortable for humans is one of the most weird anthropocentric statements I have ever seen. That Mars is uncomfortable for humans or that space itself is so terribly deadly to human and most other life is the way things are and we have to swallow it and do our best not to totally screw up the only place in the solar system where life is reasonably comfortable.There is nothing inevitable about any of it.
The point is that both Earth and Mars are broken,
That Human Beings are part of nature, not separate,
And that Mars was obviously once NOT broken,
And that Both Human Beings and Nature are broken but once were not,
as Mars obviously once was not.
19 Feb 2010, 1:11 pm
Actually, Pinker only brings up one theory that stands against decentralization, which is the Leviathan theory. If one isn't a Leviathan guy though, then the idea could be considered questionable. As it stands though, I would bet that additional variables are at stake in the analysis of smaller states or even that correlation-causation issues could play a role.
20 Feb 2010, 12:55 am
This most amusing assumption that the universe gives a damn about human evaluations of the ecology of other planets and how it might be comfortable for humans is one of the most weird anthropocentric statements I have ever seen. That Mars is uncomfortable for humans or that space itself is so terribly deadly to human and most other life is the way things are and we have to swallow it and do our best not to totally screw up the only place in the solar system where life is reasonably comfortable.There is nothing inevitable about any of it.
The point is that both Earth and Mars are broken,
That Human Beings are part of nature, not separate,
And that Mars was obviously once NOT broken,
And that Both Human Beings and Nature are broken but once were not,
as Mars obviously once was not.
The assumption that Mars is broken intimates that all planets should be suitable for human or other life. On that basis there is no other place in the solar system or probably the majority of other planets in the universe that are not "broken". Conditions on Earth are a very temporary matter and that we exist in them now is because we were formed from evolution to do so. In a relatively short time that will change, whatever humans might desire. That's the nature of how the universe works.
ValMikeSmith
Veteran
Joined: 18 May 2008
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 977
Location: Stranger in a strange land
21 Feb 2010, 8:44 am
You didn't get my idea about fixing or changing the atmosphere.
How about if everyone takes a "chill pill" there will be no wars.
War is a deadly disease. Lets find a cure for it.
Who is "let's"? War is great business. It's expensive, people are eager to have them and there are always more customers.
23 Feb 2010, 4:29 am
Identify the base codes underlying their consciousness.
Identify which part of the encoding needs modifying to prevent violent, warlike urges.
"Hack" them and replace "strands" with reinforcing positive encoding
Have attempted this and seems to work.
My friend says I should not do this . It is a very big field and requires more research because the variables are complex and unpredictable.
I think war between NT groups is currently inevitable and a left over piece of coding from a time when population: resources/territory = cull had an evolutionary function. NT's do not need to self-cull anymore in order to reduce numbers.
Abrahamic "memetic" encodings seem geared towards bringing about nuclear apocalypse as self fulfilling prophecy. As do most other belief systems.
These might originally have been abstractions/expressions of base code instructions setting population self-cull to a particular cycle/frequency .
Encodings pre- existed religion , but religion made them partly comprehensible and set them within its own context. That is why they "feel" like they contain "truth". They do. Now religion is becoming secularized these specific encodings which act like an OS to their consciousness have become embedded in a secular media and find their expression in it. Both Medium and Information carried.
Changing memetic encoding only changes the form of the carrier, not the total set of instructions it conveys. It is this very deep set of "beyond-language- rule"s that need re- abstracting , expressing and modifying. It is like the genetics of language. There is a structure there, but I don't have the math to express it.
This is my very special interest. I also like 1980's estate cars.
23 Feb 2010, 10:48 am
You didn't get my idea about fixing or changing the atmosphere.
How about if everyone takes a "chill pill" there will be no wars.
War is a deadly disease. Lets find a cure for it.
Forget it. Being warlike is wired into us genetically.
ruveyn
