With all the religious warfare taking place.....

[Revoltingest]

I often wonder what would happen to humanity if world peace really did come to pass. Consider the, perhaps, unpalatable truth that much of our advancement has been paved with human skulls.
"War what's it good for?" Er where shall I begin.....

War leads to improvements in weapon design, but this foregone benefit would be moot.

 

[DayRaven]

War leads to improvements in weapon design

It has done a lot more than just lead to new and ingenious ways to kill, medical advances in the second world war have probably saved millions more lives that may well have been lost. The first world war, arguably, has been the mortal blow to the Christian civilisation that has dominated Europe for a thousand years; its effects we still feel today and who knows what the eventual outcome will be, but I wasn't solely referring to war. Take disease: how would European history have been different without the Black Death? Would feudalism have collapsed as fast? Would we have seen the conditions that would (eventually) lead to capitalism and liberalism? Take religion: Christianity owes its foundation to an act of brutality but what would have happened if Jesus had died an old man instead?

Suffering and pain have their uses.

 

[LuisDantas]

I find the idea that military actions are ultimately of significant benefit to tecnological development very hard to take seriously.

It often shapes the directions of that development, sure. But it can hardly expect to receive the merit for enabling it, at least in advisable ways.

 

[Nakosis]

No matter how hard we may try to make things better, forces are working against all the effort. Is it really worth trying to create a better world right now?

Taliban targeting foreign aid workers

Does anyone else feel its all in vain? In some way, it really seems like trying to make a meal out of a dogs breakfast.

I like this quote from Mahatma Gandhi...

Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I find the idea that military actions are ultimately of significant benefit to tecnological development very hard to take seriously.

It often shapes the directions of that development, sure. But it can hardly expect to receive the merit for enabling it, at least in advisable ways.

I kinda disagree. I think war has consistently driven forwards technological advances. Couple of quick points;

1) Research and development is increased, at the expense of other spending options (for better or worse)
2) Technological development driven by warfare is in no way limited to 'weapons'. New alloys, engines, safety equipment, medical advances, etc, are all example.

Not suggesting war is a good way to drive technological advances, from a holistic viewpoint. But I would agree with the premise that war advances technology.

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you truly think without war those advances (or some more constructive ones) would not happen?

I just don't understand why anyone would think that way.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Do you truly think without war those advances (or some more constructive ones) would not happen?

I just don't understand why anyone would think that way.

Peaceful societies through history generally have a slower rate of technological development, would be my basic take. Less imperative. I would suspect that other hardship events would also promote technological development increases, such as famine, etc. So I'm not suggesting they wouldn't happen, merely that their rate would decrease.

I suspect you mix up your moral issues with war with other issues surrounding war sometimes. So, you can be a complete pacifist (which is how I see you) and still see that war has led to technological advances. It would merely be a judgement that the advances would have eventually happened anyway (at least, the ones useful outside of war) and that the price is in no way worth the benefit (which I'd COMPLETELY agree with).

 

[Pegg]

Hello Peggy,
The main problems with the world are through governments though aren't they? And they control the armies and police, so little we can do, accept our own bit. It's their ship, just enjoy the journey. The East is a mess generated largely by the West. Now it has backfired, big time. But ultimately, it is God's will...... don't you think?

Hi Robbo (thats how an aussie would say it)

Yes, i agree, the world is in the hands of the governments and thats a huge problem.
The words of Proverbs 29:2 ring very true:

When the righteous are many, the people rejoice,
But when the wicked one rules, the people groan​

But lets face it, if there was no governments at all, there would be anarchy, so we need some kind of authority.... unfortunately we have imperfect people as our rulers and they make mistakes.

I dont believe this is Gods will, no. When he created mankind, he alone was their authority... sadly they turned away from that righteous and generous rulership.
We can see how God feels about human rulership in the bible...ie

Eccl 8:9 All of this I have seen, and I applied my heart to every work that has been done under the sun, during the time that man has dominated man to his harm.

Micah 7:3
Their hands are expert at doing what is bad;
The prince is making demands,
The judge asks for a reward,+
The prominent one makes known his desires,*+
And they work it out together.

Jeremiah 10:23: “I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong.
It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.”​

Human rulership is a disaster for mankind. God knows it, and hopefully, after 6,000 years of disastrous rulerships, mankind have come to know it too. What we need is Gods Kingdom to rule us, not imperfect and often wicked people. And that is exactly what God has promised in

Daniel 2:44 “In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. And this kingdom will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it alone will stand forever​

 

[Pegg]

The world isn't perfect, but it's getting better. We live in the age with the lowest likelihood of death by violence ever.

Our actions aren't in vain. The road is long and difficult, but we're moving along it.

Wow, i can't believe you think thats the case????

Have you watched the news recently? Cases of domestic violence are so bad the world needs to have a special day to try and stop it, parents murdering their children and vice versa, slavery, pedophile rings, school shootings, acts of genocide, violent protests and demonstrations... these are daily occurrences

 

[Pegg]

In the long run, we're all dead. Even the universe looks headed for a boring "heat death". I do what I do to make things better just because I like doing it. Is it all in vain? Maybe. I don't dwell on that.

It would be good if our efforts were long lasting and far reaching... but sadly they are not.

And, yes in the long run we are all dead anyway so you have to wonder whats the point.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It would be good if our efforts were long lasting and far reaching... but sadly they are not.

And, yes in the long run we are all dead anyway so you have to wonder whats the point.

Never understand that argument. You're saying that permanence lends importance?

 

[Pegg]

Never understand that argument. You're saying that permanence lends importance?

Yes absolutely.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes absolutely.

Hmmm...so an act of temporary kindness is of no value, but an act of permanence is?

 

[LuisDantas]

Peaceful societies through history generally have a slower rate of technological development, would be my basic take. Less imperative. I would suspect that other hardship events would also promote technological development increases, such as famine, etc. So I'm not suggesting they wouldn't happen, merely that their rate would decrease.

I quite disagree. It is human nature to seek novelties and challenges for their own sake. If anything, military demands are a distraction from more constructive technological research.

I suspect you mix up your moral issues with war with other issues surrounding war sometimes. So, you can be a complete pacifist (which is how I see you) and still see that war has led to technological advances.

It certainly has, because it acknowledges their worth.

However, was it more than what we would otherwise have? I very much doubt it! Even leaving aside that what we had was directed towards military uses so very often, military expenses are by nature wasteful.

It would merely be a judgement that the advances would have eventually happened anyway (at least, the ones useful outside of war) and that the price is in no way worth the benefit (which I'd COMPLETELY agree with).

You seem to believe that war is an actual encouragement of technological research, though. I realize that is a common perception, but I don't see how that could be true when the likely alternate scenarios are considered.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes absolutely.

Surely if building something that lasts is worth the while, there is some worth in attaining a temporary achievement as well? If for no other reason, as a stepping stone of sorts?

 

[Pegg]

Hmmm...so an act of temporary kindness is of no value, but an act of permanence is?

Hmmmm, no. In the current conditions, is it really going to be of any long term benefit to the people to have a school where they are going to be snippered at or shot in the head for attending because a group of madmen dont want to see girls educated?

How long will it last? How many people will be killed in the process? When the conditions are so bad, the outcomes are not going to be good.

We have to be realistic.

 

[Riverwolf]

No matter how hard we may try to make things better, forces are working against all the effort. Is it really worth trying to create a better world right now?

Taliban targeting foreign aid workers

Does anyone else feel its all in vain? In some way, it really seems like trying to make a meal out of a dogs breakfast.

Only if this is the only aspect of world events you focus on, will this seem in vain. The media only reports on stories like this because it's what brings viewers in.

I'm not going to say that this stuff doesn't happen on large scales. It does, and it's horrible. I'm not even going to say it's just a small minority of what happens in the world. It happens a lot, and the media doesn't even report on all of it.

But I believe that the only time it's no longer worth creating a better world is when the very concept of a "better world" is entirely forgotten. We still have that concept, last I checked, and we have it because of all the good that goes unnoticed except in small whispers.

 

[Aupmanyav]

No matter how hard we may try to make things better, forces are working against all the effort. Is it really worth trying to create a better world right now? Does anyone else feel its all in vain? In some way, it really seems like trying to make a meal out of a dogs breakfast.

Monotheist religions will fight and try to dominate. That is what they have been doing all the time in history.

Peaceful societies through history generally have a slower rate of technological development, would be my basic take.

Is that bad? Less damage to environment.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I quite disagree. It is human nature to seek novelties and challenges for their own sake. If anything, military demands are a distraction from more constructive technological research.

We're not gonna agree on this, and I respect your opinion, so I'm kinda thinking of not pursuing this too much. But most (almost all) military techologies end up with civil applicability. They become the more constructive technological research. I would admit that this is far less true in areas such as chemical weapons.

It certainly has, because it acknowledges their worth.

However, was it more than what we would otherwise have? I very much doubt it! Even leaving aside that what we had was directed towards military uses so very often, military expenses are by nature wasteful.

Yes, but I think you are assuming the same amount of money would be spent on research and development without war, and that it would be used more efficiently due to less waste on harmful technologies. My argument is more that the overall R&D budget would be drastically reduced, so that even if slightly more efficient, the overall effect would be negative.

Would readily admit that this theory (of mine) then leaves a store of freed up money, which one would hope would be used constructively, and I'm certainly not arguing that war is good. Just that it drives technology.

You seem to believe that war is an actual encouragement of technological research, though. I realize that is a common perception, but I don't see how that could be true when the likely alternate scenarios are considered.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Computers, duct tape, off road vehicles, microwaves and GPS are all examples of pervasive technology developed either directly or indirectly by armed forces in modern war time.

Looking forward, consider biofuels, advanced heat resistant materials, portable blood scrubbers, nanobots...

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Is that bad? Less damage to environment.

Honestly? I'm not sure. My best guess would be that it would be beneficial for us to slow down, and certainly maintaining speed of technological development at the cost of war is in no way worth it, even if faster tech development is beneficial.

I wasn't arguing or suggesting that war is in any way good.