Debate topic: Peace

[Yei]

Not only capitalism.  What about communism? War on Chalkingol   between commuinst China nad communist Russia?  Or war between China and Vietnam 17. 2. 1979 – 16. 3. 1979.  Angola, Mosambik, Ethiopia... and many others. 

Still, the USA spends vastly more on arms than any other nations, though I'm not sure how it stacked up to Communist-bloc spending at the height of the Cold War. To be fair, arms races have a fairly long history, dating back to well before the Cold War. Immediately before this was the showdown between the Axis, Western Europe, and the Soviet Union. Before that was the contests between Imperial Russia, England, France, Germany, and the Austo-Hungarian Empire. However, these nations had clear and present enemies. The USA has challengers, but none that seriously threaten a military attack. I remember reading that the US army was actually against all the funding it gets, since they are inevitably inundated with weapons that they either cannot use, or are poorly suited to the tasks the army is not expected to perform.

The further back in time one goes, the less prominent armaments seem, although, they were probably always important to some degree or another. In ancient times were was the development of the Macedonian Phalanx (and the equipment changes that made it possible). Of course the Romans reformed their army several times. Warfare in the Medieval period underwent several changes, sometimes reflecting changes in armour and weapons technology. In the east, I know that the Japanese reformed their sword making techniques after fighting the Mongols and finding their traditional weapons insufficient. That said, it is hard to know if these events could, or even should, be compared to the modern Military-Industrial Complex.

[Altair]

We are, deep down, pack animals. Humans thrive as a group, and so as the group expands to include nations, allies and globalization, peace is sought after as a value because it creates harmony within the pack. Peace is an easier way to gain more resources, especially now that society says that peace and diplomacy and negotiation are virtuous, rather than simply taking what you want.

Sorry, but I think peace is bullshit.

Not that I don't think it's something we need; with the constant increase in humanity's destructive capability, we need it now more than ever. But as a goal of our societies, I think it's secondary at best.

The reason I say this is specifically because of what Uneryx mentions above. Humans' group mentality has an inherent flaw: to identify as a group, we need another group to identify against. This principle can be seen between groups (e.g., British vs. French, until they're forced to band together against the Germans; US vs. USSR) and within societies (every society has its "niggers" who are relegated culturally and/or economically to the lowest rungs and usually systematically oppressed, so that another group can reinforce its superiority: African Americans in the US, aborigines in Australia, Turks in Germany, Armenians in Turkey, Rohingya in Burma/Myanmar,...). This doesn't always break out into all-out war, but it lays the seeds in fertile ground.

The other reason why I look askance at peace is because it's not always just. (Yei and EnderDragonFire touched on this a bit in their posts.) Apartheid South Africa and the segregated US were both very peaceful for a long time, as long as the oppressed in those societies kept to their place; those who protested were accused of disturbing the peace--which was an excuse for brutal reprisal.

As the phrase often chanted at protest marches goes, "No justice, no peace".

[Sefiru]

Humans' group mentality has an inherent flaw: to identify as a group, we need another group to identify against.

(bold added)
That's debatable. Just because a thing is common, does not mean that it *must* exist. Also, most groups that I can think of define themselves primarily in positive terms ("we are X") with negative defining terms ("We are not X") being secondary, if they are present at all.

I also believe that while identity is often an excuse to start conflicts and/or oppress people, the root cause is most often a (real or perceived) lack of resources.

[Darkhawk]

I also believe that while identity is often an excuse to start conflicts and/or oppress people, the root cause is most often a (real or perceived) lack of resources.

Huge chunks of current war and refugee crisis stuff can be traced to the agricultural disruptions that are starting to emerge from climate change....

[Altair]

That's debatable. Just because a thing is common, does not mean that it *must* exist.

OK. But I see a clear pattern of strong group cohesion through definition against an “other,” either internal or external. Group A defines itself in relation to Group B…until Group C comes along, when it becomes Group AB against C…until XYZ makes it ABC vs. XYZ. For example, African Americans were a lesser breed…until 2 world wars banded Americans together in the face of a foreign threat. (When that threat was gone, American society tried to relegate us to the back of the bus again, but we weren’t having it.)

Our job is to constantly expand the definition of "us", as Uneryx alluded to. But I think it’s important to acknowledge this fundamental, flawed aspect of human social grouping--the "us vs. them" mentality--otherwise we’ll be hobbled as we try to overcome it.

[Owl]

Huge chunks of current war and refugee crisis stuff can be traced to the agricultural disruptions that are starting to emerge from climate change....

And that isn’t going away! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[arete]

But why does humanity value peace?

Because all humans share the same blood, we are brothers and sisters. Creating enemies and causing wars is stupid.

[Owl]

Because all humans share the same blood, we are brothers and sisters. Creating enemies and causing wars is stupid.

In my opinion, those who value peace are either tired of the opposite, or afraid of the opposite.

Human beings are predators - please note the eye placement - and as such we will have to advance a lot more socially before peace doesn’t have to be enforced on at least some people/nations/groups.

Peace is easy when there is plenty to go around, and that plenty is spread around. Anything else makes it difficult.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Yei]

Because all humans share the same blood, we are brothers and sisters. Creating enemies and causing wars is stupid.

There are many people in this world who I do not consider to be my family.

[Owl]

There are many people in this world who I do not consider to be my family.

Absolutely!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[arete]

In my opinion, those who value peace are either tired of the opposite, or afraid of the opposite.

Human beings are predators - please note the eye placement - and as such we will have to advance a lot more socially before peace doesn’t have to be enforced on at least some people/nations/groups.

Peace is easy when there is plenty to go around, and that plenty is spread around. Anything else makes it difficult.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We are not predators. We are an hybrid and we make enemies with each other.

[arete]

There are many people in this world who I do not consider to be my family.

Society promotes strangers.

[Redfaery]

Society promotes strangers.

How? Do you personally know 7.5 billion people? There's nothing wrong with feeling neutral toward someone you don't know.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[arete]

How? Do you personally know 7.5 billion people? There's nothing wrong with feeling neutral toward someone you don't know.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Do you like the phrase, ''in a crowd but all alone''?

[EclecticWheel]

Without hunger, sickness, or disaster, we wouldn't have a reason to advance past that balance of basic subsistence and comfort. We wouldn't have invented agriculture, and people would not have settled down into full societies with cultures and religions as complex as they are today.

But might we still have been happy that way?