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
Agreed. This won’t work 100% but it’s probably the closest we can get.
The complete extinction of the human race
Through evolution or genetic engineering
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?
at what point is that just eugenics tho
Rename to “armed conflict” or “special military operations”
You are now a moderator of BiPartisanConsensus@lemmy.warmachine
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.
Since you stipulated our species, to me, the answer is an external threat to the whole. Aliens, higher or lower dimensional creatures, cryptids, flame unicorns sharting lava, even angels or demons if we want to get real wild.
Even just the threat of an existential terror such as these and probably a lot I missed, (feel free to add to the list! Feed me your existential threats!) has the potential to bring the species together to fight on a larger scale.
However this doesn’t eliminate war just moves the focus. So I’m not sure if I’ve answered your question or not but I had fun doing it!
I feel like the cultural/political responses to both global warming and COVID-19 have shaken my faith in this sort-of Watchmen scenario working out. No matter how universal the threat, seems like some groups will always find an angle to work that cuts against the “greater good.”
Kill everyone. No people, no wars! Win/win in my book
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.
I love that comment.
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.
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.
This one was great, highly recommend it.
Off topic but on a side note, I spent the last 7 years trying to find back this anime. Thanks!
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
But that would require the loser to accept the loss.
The equivalent to someone losing and breaking their controller in this scenario is them invading the other country.
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
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.
Did the last year in Europe fly by you unnoticed?
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.
A single world spanning country.
If we don’t kill ourselves off first it will probably happen eventually. Country sized used to be limited by things like communication latency, and the time it took to move forces around. Technology has shrunk the world so that those things no longer matter. The natural size limit on a country is almost certainly as large as the earth now.
It won’t happen soon, cultures will take time to become similar enough to merge. Leadership structures take time to be absorbed into a greater one (EU style) or have to forcefully taken over (Chechnya style, thankfully very rare these days). But with no real impediment to countries growing larger, it will happen eventually. With no-one able to fund or support rebellion and modern technology making police actions extremely effective it may well last effectively forever.
Whether it’s a democratic utopia, a dictatorial nightmare, or something in between for the common citizen is not yet defined. Either way, war, as in peer to peer conflict between sovereigns, will be over.
Doesn’t that loop back around?
Everyone becomes part of the world government, but as time goes on people with different leanings or needs or whatever band together. With time and effort they are allowed exceptions, customizations, etc. This turns into more groups collecting in the same way with more factioning as a result.
It may not be geographic countries in the same way, but isn’t the result the same?
Factions happen. Political power struggles happen. Even coups happen.
It’s quite rare for civil wars to happen, or for countries to dissolve. With a world country where there were no outside groups to go to for support or see as an example, it will become even rarer. “Not in a thousand years” sort of rare.
Conflict within a country which maintains superior capacity to violence than it’s constituent groups is very different from war. That doesn’t mean no one gets shot, but it means no one carves the land up with trenches and barrages the enemy with artillery for months on end. Real war is a particularly ugly beast and very few things are like it.
Well, you can still get civil war in that scenario right, or just mass strife and protests which can grow into warlike movements.
Nuclear deterrent. If that fails, nuclear annihilation. Either way, there will be no more wars.
IMHO that would fail. Pretty much the “more guns” argument. And while of course countries are more responsible than individuals, I don’t believe they are responsible enough not to fail even once ever. And failing once might be all it takes.
The question is ill-posed.
War is just a tool, a collective act of violence that a group of people do against another in order to obtain a result. It’s always sad and it’s always bring sufference, but one could say sometimes it’s necessary. If you cancel war from the world witouth changin anything else, you will ends up probably damagin more the one with actually less power, since violence is usually the last resort in order to confront someone that hold political, economical and soft power upon you.
If you wanted to ask how we go to a situation when wars are not necessary and they are actually the less convenient and effective way to obtain collective or personal results, so that we ends up with no actual war are started, here’s my answer. We need to build a system that minimize close to zero the difference in power (every kind of power) between people, and we need to build an efficient an relieble system to intermediate and resolve the inevitable conflict between people and groups.
How about massive free psychedelic doses?
