3 ms·
I guess not? Heres what I took it to mean: I think the comment is suggesting that war and violence is an acceptable and inevitable outcome of the current econom
by dontreact 9y ago
I guess not? Heres what I took it to mean: I think the comment is suggesting that war and violence is an acceptable and inevitable outcome of the current economic and social climate.
- bostik 9y agoWhile I disagree with "acceptable", traditionally wars have been the one socially agreeable way of getting rid of excess (male) population. The economic repercussions of increased local manufacturing (you don't outsource weapons manufacturing to your enemies) combined with increased demand for workforce are pretty well understood. Which also kind of explains why right-wingers tend to be disproportionally warmongers. War's good for business, after all.
- dontreact 9y agoYes the world has been brutal and violent for a long time. Fortunately there has been a trend towards less violence per capita over time. To me suggesting that we should regress in this dimension in order to deal with the problems being generated by the current economic and political system seems completely unacceptable. I think as long as all labor can be automated and we as a society do not try to keep humans alive, power will just keep concentrating in the hands of fewer and fewer regardless of how many wars are fought.