5 ms·

This argument that the world is more peaceful than ever is true... but it's true for a really bad reason. It's true because we have nukes. Full stop. The reali

This argument that the world is more peaceful than ever is true... but it's true for a really bad reason. It's true because we have nukes. Full stop. The reality is that we're staring down the barrel of not one, not two, not three, but potentially dozens of existential threats. The aforementioned nukes, climate change, environmental collapse, bioweapons, topsoil erosion... it's not an illusion created by the media. We're really not in good shape.

jcranmer 6y ago
> This argument that the world is more peaceful than ever is true... but it's true for a really bad reason. It's true because we have nukes. Full stop. Not really? Nukes only come into play with great power wars, and there's not really any fewer great power wars in the past century than the century before that. Post Napoleonic Wars, the only great power wars (in chronological order) are the Crimean War, Austro-Prussian War, Franco-Prussian War, World War I, Russian Revolution/Russian Civil War, and World War II, with the three 20th century wars all being far longer and more violent than the 19th century wars. What has dropped down considerably is the lesser wars, be they localized conflicts such as the Ecuador-Peruvian War of 1941, civil wars such as the Spanish Civil War or American Civil War, wars between great powers and lesser powers such as the Russo-Japanese War, colonial wars such as the Boer War or the Indian Wars, revolutions such as the Revolutions of 1848. Of these, the only conflict that may have been avoided by nukes is an India/Pakistan conflict--note that Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons hasn't forestalled further conflicts with Arab countries (notably the Israel-Lebanon in my lifetime).
glasss 6y ago
No one is saying we don't have some serious problems. But it is the truth that this is objectively the best time to be alive as a human being.
NoOneNew 6y ago
A majority of people dont do bad deeds because they're "good hearted". They dont murder or steal because they're afraid of the consequences. Theres plenty of folks you want to punch in the face. Maybe once, twice or until they stop breathing. You lie to yourself that you dont do it because you're a good person. No, you're afraid they'll punch back, or their friends will intervene or assault charges. Or even better, you're too weak to cause consequential harm. Yes nukes stopped a lot of potential wars. Good. If the mere existence is all that's needed to stop like half the wars that ever could be... and? Obviously I dont want them used. But wars happen and theres nothing anyone can do about that. Its human nature to be a bunch of cunts. And there have always been a bunch of existential problems on the horizon. A decent reading of history shows that people have been fearful of whatever the latest fad of problems. The only real difference, in the last 100 years we are not at the complete and total mercy of nature. Only partially. It's only fairly recent that a drought here and there, blizzard, tornado, hurricane or volcano doesn't have epically large consequences in death toll. Those numbers are far less than they used to be.
- Pryde 6y ago
  Speaking solely to your first paragraph here, I've seen this sentiment expressed before, and it always strikes me as off in some way. I've not committed a lot of thought to the topic until recently, so apologies if my thoughts here are muddled or unclear. I can pretty easily convince myself that a lot of what I'll call "smaller" bad deeds are primarily deterred by the threat of consequences: I never shoplifted a candy bar because it wasn't worth the perceived consequences. But I have a substantially harder time convincing myself that most people don't commit "grander" crimes largely because of a similar fear. Taking murder as the example and myself as a case study, I cannot fathom committing a murder because it feels wrong, there is a part of my mind that recoils at just the thought of it. Is that because the potential consequences of that act are ingrained into my psyche, or is there another reason? I'm inclined toward the latter, certainly. Not to mention that punishments geared toward deterrence often seem to not prevent murder from occurring. I don't have any grand insights here, just sharing my observations on the topic, as it's come up surprisingly often recently in my experience on the internet.
  - NoOneNew 6y ago
    So I do understand your viewpoint because I absolutely shared it in the past and at no point do I want you to think that I'm about to speak down at you. A lot of people have never been in a real life scenario to experience the actual decision process of doing "bad deeds". Which is actually good. The world is technically a better place because more and more people never have to experience the thought process first hand. However, they sometimes pretend they have, but they really haven't. I was in that field for quite a while. First time parents find an issue with this too. People who figure they themselves are perfect angels incapable of harm, now have to care for their new little angel. An angel doesn't protect a weak little angel from the horrors of the world. What happens when someone abuses or abducts their child? Remember that Olympic physician who was touching all those underage girls? One of the fathers begged the judge for 5 min in a locked room with the guy. When denied, he still charged at the bastard in the courtroom. I bet you 100% that father would have always said he would never do such a thing prior to this event happening. We all lie that we are incapable or evil deeds. No, we need the right circumstances to ignore the consequences. We are afraid of retaliation until we no longer fear it for "good reasons". If you live a life where you never test those waters, hey that's a pretty good easy life. But theres something else to be said about understanding and accepting ones shadow prior hand so you dont go ballistic accidentally. I think the thought that you are incapable of evil is more dangerous than knowing you are capable of it. Because you never question if what you are doing is right or wrong if you are already biased that you can only do good.
Geminidog 6y ago
No not really. All countries have utilities to wage conventional war without going nuclear yet even with these utilities in place we are not waging war to the scale (in terms of %) as we did historically. The reason why there are less wars in the modern era is because there's no more tangible benefit in going to war. In the old days going to war meant getting more plunder in your coffers. Things like gold and resources. Today wealth is stored in information, knowledge, know-how and expertise. Going to war doesn't necessarily grant you access to this kind of wealth. I can't transfer the expertise of how to fab a processor by invading silicon valley with soldiers. War even runs the risk of destroying know-how and infrastructure related to technology. The way towards wealth in the modern era is through learning, communication and espionage. You would think this kind of thing is obvious, that everyone should know that the spoils of war in the past when applied to the modern era are basically useless. But alas the complexities and blast of useless information delivered to us by the media makes it hard to pinpoint the fundamental reasoning.

jcranmer 6y ago

> This argument that the world is more peaceful than ever is true... but it's true for a really bad reason. It's true because we have nukes. Full stop. Not really? Nukes only come into play with great power wars, and there's not really any fewer great power wars in the past century than the century before that. Post Napoleonic Wars, the only great power wars (in chronological order) are the Crimean War, Austro-Prussian War, Franco-Prussian War, World War I, Russian Revolution/Russian Civil War, and World War II, with the three 20th century wars all being far longer and more violent than the 19th century wars. What has dropped down considerably is the lesser wars, be they localized conflicts such as the Ecuador-Peruvian War of 1941, civil wars such as the Spanish Civil War or American Civil War, wars between great powers and lesser powers such as the Russo-Japanese War, colonial wars such as the Boer War or the Indian Wars, revolutions such as the Revolutions of 1848. Of these, the only conflict that may have been avoided by nukes is an India/Pakistan conflict--note that Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons hasn't forestalled further conflicts with Arab countries (notably the Israel-Lebanon in my lifetime).

glasss 6y ago

No one is saying we don't have some serious problems. But it is the truth that this is objectively the best time to be alive as a human being.

NoOneNew 6y ago

A majority of people dont do bad deeds because they're "good hearted". They dont murder or steal because they're afraid of the consequences. Theres plenty of folks you want to punch in the face. Maybe once, twice or until they stop breathing. You lie to yourself that you dont do it because you're a good person. No, you're afraid they'll punch back, or their friends will intervene or assault charges. Or even better, you're too weak to cause consequential harm. Yes nukes stopped a lot of potential wars. Good. If the mere existence is all that's needed to stop like half the wars that ever could be... and? Obviously I dont want them used. But wars happen and theres nothing anyone can do about that. Its human nature to be a bunch of cunts. And there have always been a bunch of existential problems on the horizon. A decent reading of history shows that people have been fearful of whatever the latest fad of problems. The only real difference, in the last 100 years we are not at the complete and total mercy of nature. Only partially. It's only fairly recent that a drought here and there, blizzard, tornado, hurricane or volcano doesn't have epically large consequences in death toll. Those numbers are far less than they used to be.

Pryde 6y ago
Speaking solely to your first paragraph here, I've seen this sentiment expressed before, and it always strikes me as off in some way. I've not committed a lot of thought to the topic until recently, so apologies if my thoughts here are muddled or unclear. I can pretty easily convince myself that a lot of what I'll call "smaller" bad deeds are primarily deterred by the threat of consequences: I never shoplifted a candy bar because it wasn't worth the perceived consequences. But I have a substantially harder time convincing myself that most people don't commit "grander" crimes largely because of a similar fear. Taking murder as the example and myself as a case study, I cannot fathom committing a murder because it feels wrong, there is a part of my mind that recoils at just the thought of it. Is that because the potential consequences of that act are ingrained into my psyche, or is there another reason? I'm inclined toward the latter, certainly. Not to mention that punishments geared toward deterrence often seem to not prevent murder from occurring. I don't have any grand insights here, just sharing my observations on the topic, as it's come up surprisingly often recently in my experience on the internet.
- NoOneNew 6y ago
  So I do understand your viewpoint because I absolutely shared it in the past and at no point do I want you to think that I'm about to speak down at you. A lot of people have never been in a real life scenario to experience the actual decision process of doing "bad deeds". Which is actually good. The world is technically a better place because more and more people never have to experience the thought process first hand. However, they sometimes pretend they have, but they really haven't. I was in that field for quite a while. First time parents find an issue with this too. People who figure they themselves are perfect angels incapable of harm, now have to care for their new little angel. An angel doesn't protect a weak little angel from the horrors of the world. What happens when someone abuses or abducts their child? Remember that Olympic physician who was touching all those underage girls? One of the fathers begged the judge for 5 min in a locked room with the guy. When denied, he still charged at the bastard in the courtroom. I bet you 100% that father would have always said he would never do such a thing prior to this event happening. We all lie that we are incapable or evil deeds. No, we need the right circumstances to ignore the consequences. We are afraid of retaliation until we no longer fear it for "good reasons". If you live a life where you never test those waters, hey that's a pretty good easy life. But theres something else to be said about understanding and accepting ones shadow prior hand so you dont go ballistic accidentally. I think the thought that you are incapable of evil is more dangerous than knowing you are capable of it. Because you never question if what you are doing is right or wrong if you are already biased that you can only do good.

Geminidog 6y ago

No not really. All countries have utilities to wage conventional war without going nuclear yet even with these utilities in place we are not waging war to the scale (in terms of %) as we did historically. The reason why there are less wars in the modern era is because there's no more tangible benefit in going to war. In the old days going to war meant getting more plunder in your coffers. Things like gold and resources. Today wealth is stored in information, knowledge, know-how and expertise. Going to war doesn't necessarily grant you access to this kind of wealth. I can't transfer the expertise of how to fab a processor by invading silicon valley with soldiers. War even runs the risk of destroying know-how and infrastructure related to technology. The way towards wealth in the modern era is through learning, communication and espionage. You would think this kind of thing is obvious, that everyone should know that the spoils of war in the past when applied to the modern era are basically useless. But alas the complexities and blast of useless information delivered to us by the media makes it hard to pinpoint the fundamental reasoning.