geekmarine
-
Content count
2370 -
Joined
-
Last visited
9 Followers
Single Status Update
-
So I've been thinking about the subject of war, and I just can't help but think about something. Recently, there's been an interesting trend. Consider the Star Wars Prequels... An enormous war breaks out throughout the galaxy. Many people valiantly die for the cause, and yet in the end, it turns out that the entire thing was simply a distraction created by Palpatine so that he could take over the galaxy. It really didn't matter how the war came out... The result would have bene the same.
Then I realized that Lord of the Rings is another similar situation. Massive war breaks out in Middle Earth, but the point of the war was not what it seemed. Once again, the victor wasn't important; the point of the war was to provide a distraction so that Frodo could destroy the Ring.
Of course, there are plently of political implications for Bush's current war in Iraq. Is all war like this? Do the powers-that-be simply pull the wool over our eyes, convince us that we're fighting for a cause worth killing or dying for, and simply reap the benefits of their political maneuvers? Of course the more I think about it, the more wars I realize were politically motivated, but is it possible that all wars are? I mean, I have a hard time believing that this is why we fought World War II, for example, but it does raise questions. And it really is a horrifying thought, the fact that some people are willing to send entire armies off to fight and die.
Geez... It's not that I didn't know that many wars were not worth the lives lost, but the thought that the concept of war itself is not just... Well, of course, I've never condoned war, but I always assumed that there were righteous causes out there (survival, etc.) worth fighting for, but now I just can't imagine that to be the case. Wow, I'm really having a "Duh" moment here. Then again, think about how many millions, if not billions, of people there are in the world who don't realize that war is not right.- Show previous comments 20 more
-
Janderson said:
I hope this post isn't as vague as the last one.It's not that it's vague; saying "if it weren't for war" is, in the first place, pontless because anything we look at wouldn't be without what did happen. It's just work on things that "develops" the technology. War is simply an abrupt violent usage of technology. Practically all war tools are based on domestic or industrial ones, and for every war a nation or culture is hampered; not to mention cutural development itself, since violent appropriation and expansion is accompanied by censure and cultural destruction. Think of all the cultures and techniques we know little about. Their legacy has been for a great part destroyed by war and pillaging. Their books burned and their homes torn asunder. In short periods.
War brings way less things than normal day to day commerce and relatively peaceful immigration does. Even since very ancient times we've been trading stuff and information, and exchanging technology. Saying "if it weren't for war" is pretty much an insult to much more solid relatively decent behavior where things are really being worked on, day by day, every minute.
As far as "revolutions" go, economical change (in the real broad sense) and social action and support are far more important and necessary than acts of violence, which may or may not happen in such instances.
The reason why monarchies fell into decline is because the feudal system became anachronic. It wasn't because of war. And dictatorships must be enforced militarily; otherwise they aren't dictatorships at all; and many, if not most of them, end best without military violence.The reason there are no Neanderthals left today is because technologically, they failed.
Wait... then you aren't a Neandethal?
-
-
Janderson said:War is what created us.
Really? Ask your parents -- I know I wasn't created by any war. Maybe a little shooting. :P
It is all about evolution
Really? Ask Charles Darwin if his "survival of the fittest" theory extends to those that are made artificially the "fittest" via extraneous means (In this case, arms).
And like genes, technowlogy is passed down to the survivors.
Technology is so unlike genes, since technology isn't potentially recessive; there is no entropy, only growth (MicroSoft aside, heh).
And... "survivors"...? That's a bloody-minded way to look at a races' offspring you got there ;)
War is what seperates us from animals, war is what brought us to the top of the food chain.As opposed to language skills, construction skills, and the ability to "simulate" imaginary or potential scenarios using mental visualisation? Wow, my understanding of interspecies differences needs a rethink :P
And I doubt your food chain analogy would hold together so well, were the rest of it's members all armed, too. Why the words "pissing" and "wind" come into mind I have no idea. but there you go.
I'm not going to change on my opinion of this; the mantra "War is necessary" is, in my humble opinion (A disclaimer I add merely out of politeness), an outdated view expressed mainly by those who lack the intelligence and/or imagination to think of other alternatives.
Sure, there are (few, admittedly) situations which require conflict as a resolve, but most can be solved in better ways. - Show next comments 3 more