4 ms·

I think you're right, but one could also argue that such "gang-up together, feel solidarity, and take action against" behavior is natural to humans. It is in wa

I think you're right, but one could also argue that such "gang-up together, feel solidarity, and take action against" behavior is natural to humans. It is in war that the greatest technological advances take place, and it is in solidarity that societies flourish. Is that better or worse for the human species in the long term?

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
Better, if we work together by indefinitely sustaining a war against an artificial intelligence or extraterrestrial invader. Otherwise we will run out of enemies or die in the process. That or 1984.
- stcredzero 10y ago
  Otherwise we will run out of enemies I'm sure the capacity for people to imagine ill of our fellow human beings is inexhaustible.
- booleandilemma 10y ago
  Isn't this the villain's idea in Watchmen?
stcredzero 10y ago
such "gang-up together, feel solidarity, and take action against" behavior is natural to humans That is precisely what I am saying. It is in war that the greatest technological advances take place, and it is in solidarity that societies flourish. It is a bad idea to put people into "war mode" when they should be rationally debating and voting.
clock_tower 10y ago
Everyone in this conversation should read William James' 1910 essay, "The Moral Equivalent of War" -- one copy's at http://www.constitution.org/wj/meow.htm http://www.constitution.org/wj/meow.htm . His candid description of the militarist position is appalling; but he makes a case that martial effort and self-sacrifice are good in themselves, but should be mobilized for purposes a bit nobler than killing one's neighbors and taking their stuff. The Peace Corps, the old Civil Conservation Corps, and the like were and are a partial expression of what he hoped for; but it would be good to see this go further. War is more harmful than beneficial on balance (read up on WWI, especially, and the way in which Western civilization was coming apart at the seams by the end); collective self-defense is of course necessary, but we should seek better ways of gaining these benefits. (Solidarity against entropy, perhaps? That would be doubly interesting since fighting entropy is both a good thing and a lost cause...)
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  That's what Edward Bernays did, after discovering the galvanizing effect of war on the human spirit. Except he strove to recreate that same effect in peacetime by turning active citizens into passive consumers who fight each other for superiority from the products they buy, instead of conquering lands.
  - clock_tower 10y ago
    I can't tell if you're praising his effort or condemning it; but I'd point out that that sort of conflict is a Hobbesian warre of all against all, in which cohesion and self-sacrifice are impossible -- which is what both James and the pre-WWI militarists were afraid of.
    - stcredzero 10y ago
      I'd point out that that sort of conflict is a Hobbesian warre of all against all The current structure of social media seems to incentivize people separating into isolated walled camps while demonizing the other groups and figuratively throwing rocks.
      - clock_tower 10y ago
        That's certainly true, but I think that this reflects the extent to which the US is divided into warring tribes -- and so isn't in Bernays' consumption-only state of affairs.
        stcredzero 10y ago
        The fact that Bernays couldn't imagine the particulars of social media makes his analysis suspect.
- littletimmy 10y ago
  It might be that the best option is perpetual war against an ineffectual enemy. If you have an enemy that you can absolutely keep in check, and periodically have to fight without much loss to yourself, then you can achieve solidarity and a militaristic spirit without causing too much harm to your own people. I'm thinking the Israelis vs the Palestinians, for example. If Israel can keep Palestinians as a perpetual enemy, given the much smaller power of the Palestinians, a limited perpetual war will keep the Israeli people ever-united without bringing them much harm. All the benefits of war without downside.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago

Better, if we work together by indefinitely sustaining a war against an artificial intelligence or extraterrestrial invader. Otherwise we will run out of enemies or die in the process. That or 1984.

stcredzero 10y ago
Otherwise we will run out of enemies I'm sure the capacity for people to imagine ill of our fellow human beings is inexhaustible.
booleandilemma 10y ago
Isn't this the villain's idea in Watchmen?

stcredzero 10y ago

such "gang-up together, feel solidarity, and take action against" behavior is natural to humans That is precisely what I am saying. It is in war that the greatest technological advances take place, and it is in solidarity that societies flourish. It is a bad idea to put people into "war mode" when they should be rationally debating and voting.

clock_tower 10y ago

Everyone in this conversation should read William James' 1910 essay, "The Moral Equivalent of War" -- one copy's at http://www.constitution.org/wj/meow.htm http://www.constitution.org/wj/meow.htm . His candid description of the militarist position is appalling; but he makes a case that martial effort and self-sacrifice are good in themselves, but should be mobilized for purposes a bit nobler than killing one's neighbors and taking their stuff. The Peace Corps, the old Civil Conservation Corps, and the like were and are a partial expression of what he hoped for; but it would be good to see this go further. War is more harmful than beneficial on balance (read up on WWI, especially, and the way in which Western civilization was coming apart at the seams by the end); collective self-defense is of course necessary, but we should seek better ways of gaining these benefits. (Solidarity against entropy, perhaps? That would be doubly interesting since fighting entropy is both a good thing and a lost cause...)

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
That's what Edward Bernays did, after discovering the galvanizing effect of war on the human spirit. Except he strove to recreate that same effect in peacetime by turning active citizens into passive consumers who fight each other for superiority from the products they buy, instead of conquering lands.
- clock_tower 10y ago
  I can't tell if you're praising his effort or condemning it; but I'd point out that that sort of conflict is a Hobbesian warre of all against all, in which cohesion and self-sacrifice are impossible -- which is what both James and the pre-WWI militarists were afraid of.
  - stcredzero 10y ago
    I'd point out that that sort of conflict is a Hobbesian warre of all against all The current structure of social media seems to incentivize people separating into isolated walled camps while demonizing the other groups and figuratively throwing rocks.
    - clock_tower 10y ago
      That's certainly true, but I think that this reflects the extent to which the US is divided into warring tribes -- and so isn't in Bernays' consumption-only state of affairs.
      - stcredzero 10y ago
        The fact that Bernays couldn't imagine the particulars of social media makes his analysis suspect.
littletimmy 10y ago
It might be that the best option is perpetual war against an ineffectual enemy. If you have an enemy that you can absolutely keep in check, and periodically have to fight without much loss to yourself, then you can achieve solidarity and a militaristic spirit without causing too much harm to your own people. I'm thinking the Israelis vs the Palestinians, for example. If Israel can keep Palestinians as a perpetual enemy, given the much smaller power of the Palestinians, a limited perpetual war will keep the Israeli people ever-united without bringing them much harm. All the benefits of war without downside.