War is an attempt at gaining resources and an attempt to keep resources. even If every country in the world had the same amount of resources (land, oil, money, trees, etc) there would still be war to become the country with the most. If there was a single government for the world and everyone had the same amount of material possessions there would still be civil war. The masses would be angry because they had meaningless lives and were merely working ants for the government.
The fact that you would be angry because you've been conditionned to value posession doesn't mean that a world that doesn't embrace that concept would.
I would like to quote Rousseau but I can't find a decent translation so I'll make my own of an extract of of "Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes":
It is easy to see that among the differences that distinguish men, several are accepted as natural while they are only the works of habit and of the different types of life that men have in society. A vigorous or delicat character and the strengh or weakness that this character may cause, often come more from how we have been brought up than from the body's primitive constitution. This is also appliable to strengh of mind, and not only deos education create the difference between cultivated minds, and other ones, it also widens the difference between the former ones through culture. If we compare the prodigious diversity of education and ways of life that dwell in the different civil ranks with the simplicity and uniformity of animal and wild life where all feed on the same food, live the same lives and do exactly the same things, we can understand how shallow the difference between man and man is in his natural state compared to the difference in society and how much natural inequality is amplified in the human race by institutional inequality.
tl;dr society builds inequality
So if you diminish society's influence, people naturally become more equal and don't systematically get 'angry' at not being superior to others.
That was to answer the above post.
As for the OP, I believe that people who cause war (because the direct causes of war are men, I don't believe there is any debate there) have been raised to have such a mentality that is roughly based on the concept that the only valid reason not to cause violence is fear of retaliation. It's the foundation of many criminal systems and religions in Western culture and it simply doesn't stand. If people were closer to each other, had a sense of identity as a race and not as a nation, town or football team supporter, they would grasp the idea that by hurting another person, they would be hurting the very entity they are part of. It's basically the same concept as being kind to a family member or befriending your compatriot when you're in a foreign country.
I believe we're naturally inclined to being close to each other (for example you have the instinct of being kinder to a person on a wheelchair because it is physically weaker and demands protection) and that the barriers that stop us from being close enough to end war are all a product of the society we know since it's what has replaced our natural environment. That said, I'm not an anarchist. I do believe, that it is possible to build a society based upon sharing and sincere amiability that would conserve the beautiful concept of progress while making us progress as a species and not as a group.
I would like to quote Rousseau but I can't find a decent translation so I'll make my own of an extract of of "Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes":
Il est aisé de voir qu'entre les différences qui distinguent les hommes, plusieurs passent pour naturelles qui sont uniquement l'ouvrage de l'habitude et des divers genres de vie que les hommes adoptent dans la société. Ainsi un tempérament robuste ou délicat, la force ou la faiblesse qui en dépendent, viennent souvent plus de la manière dont on a été élevé que de la constitution primitive des corps. Il en est de même des forces de l'esprit, et non seulement l'éducation met de la différence entre les esprits cultivés, et ceux qui ne le sont pas, mais elle augmente celle qui se trouve entre les premiers à proportion de la culture. Or si l'on compare la diversité prodigieuse d'éducations et de genres de vie qui règnent dans les différents ordres de l'état civil, avec la simplicité et l'uniformité de la vie animale et sauvage où tous se nourrissent des mêmes aliments, vivent de la même manière, et font exactement les mêmes choses, on comprendra combien la différence d'homme à homme doit être moindre dans l'état de nature que dans celui de société et combien l'inégalité naturelle doit augmenter dans l'espèce humaine par l'inégalité d'institution.
It is easy to see that among the differences that distinguish men, several are accepted as natural while they are only the works of habit and of the different types of life that men have in society. A vigorous or delicat character and the strengh or weakness that this character may cause, often come more from how we have been brought up than from the body's primitive constitution. This is also appliable to strengh of mind, and not only deos education create the difference between cultivated minds, and other ones, it also widens the difference between the former ones through culture. If we compare the prodigious diversity of education and ways of life that dwell in the different civil ranks with the simplicity and uniformity of animal and wild life where all feed on the same food, live the same lives and do exactly the same things, we can understand how shallow the difference between man and man is in his natural state compared to the difference in society and how much natural inequality is amplified in the human race by institutional inequality.
tl;dr society builds inequality
So if you diminish society's influence, people naturally become more equal and don't systematically get 'angry' at not being superior to others.
That was to answer the above post.
As for the OP, I believe that people who cause war (because the direct causes of war are men, I don't believe there is any debate there) have been raised to have such a mentality that is roughly based on the concept that the only valid reason not to cause violence is fear of retaliation. It's the foundation of many criminal systems and religions in Western culture and it simply doesn't stand. If people were closer to each other, had a sense of identity as a race and not as a nation, town or football team supporter, they would grasp the idea that by hurting another person, they would be hurting the very entity they are part of. It's basically the same concept as being kind to a family member or befriending your compatriot when you're in a foreign country.
I believe we're naturally inclined to being close to each other (for example you have the instinct of being kinder to a person on a wheelchair because it is physically weaker and demands protection) and that the barriers that stop us from being close enough to end war are all a product of the society we know since it's what has replaced our natural environment. That said, I'm not an anarchist. I do believe, that it is possible to build a society based upon sharing and sincere amiability that would conserve the beautiful concept of progress while making us progress as a species and not as a group.
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»