3 ms·

I believe that many malevolent people, or at least their followers, would be much less malevolent or active if they had their basic needs met plus a little bit

by blunte 6y ago

I believe that many malevolent people, or at least their followers, would be much less malevolent or active if they had their basic needs met plus a little bit of cushion to enjoy life. To be more specific, many of the worst people have lived through some truly horrible childhoods (often experiencing war and poverty as a child). Stop the cycle of war and poverty, and then see how naturally malevolent people are. We have the productivity to afford that; we just have chosen to consolidate it to a relative few.

nwienert 6y ago
I think the only reason you have all your needs met is due to war, and now you sit on a pile of blood-stained surplus with clean gloves and make faces as though better. It’s all pointless moralizing. Sure, prosperity may reduce war. I tend to think MAD and global trade have done most of the reducing. But just dismissing war as if you have some superior moral compass to anyone with absolutely no sign of any insight to reduce it, or understanding of why it happens, just reeks of privilege and cheap moralizing that I’d prefer stay on Twitter and Reddit.
xd 6y ago
"their basic needs met plus a little bit of cushion to enjoy life" Who's responsibility is it to meet these needs?
- Shacklz 6y ago
  Irrelevant of the answer, it helps in general if your efforts & hard work towards a better life aren't bombed into oblivion
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
rtx 6y ago
This is half true, today religion is the primary driver of conflict.
- kleer001 6y ago
  tribalism is the primary driver of conflict and has always been
hutzlibu 6y ago
" Stop the cycle of war and poverty, and then see how naturally malevolent people are." So far it is only a hypothesis, that war can be avoided if people just would not starve anymore. (I don't think there was really hunger in europe pre WW1 for example) Also, assuming we would distribute ressources equally (nevermind the political means to achieve that for a moment): It no doubt would be enough for everyone today. But the world population is already going steeply up - with people starving. So if it would go even much more up, if no one would be starving - would it then also be enough for 10 billion people? 20 billion? How much more roundup can the fields take? So don't get me wrong. A world with no wars and where no one has to starve is definitely a noble cause I agree to. I just thinkt it is not so easy, if it is possible at all, since there was never a time in human history without. We don't know whether it can work out at all.
- InitialLastName 6y ago
  > (I don't think there was really hunger in europe pre WW1 for example) IIRC gaining and ensuring continued access to food production centers in central Europe was one of Germany's primary motivating factors leading into WWI.
  - hutzlibu 6y ago
    I learned it a bit different, but in either case - you don't have to starve if you can buy food. And the market was working in europe. So it was more about hunger for power. Because sure, owning something is better than having to buy something.
    - munk-a 6y ago
      Pre-WWI gets a lot of rose-tinted views due to fact that a lot of our accounts of living from that time come from well off folks - there isn't much literature and art that came out of the working classes - there were certainly a few good examples but it would become much more prominent when the great depression equalized classes and forced well educated folks to endure the same life the poor had been enduring. I would still consider WWI the last hurrah of prestige wars (where an essentially divine monarch instigated war for personal reasons and had the authority to enforce his will over the entire nation) but the hardships were real going into it. Content people tend to lean away from conflict - the marshall plan in europe seems to bear that out pretty clearly in my eyes. I think it's a rather successful demonstration of the fact that stability breeds peace and, honestly, the US military agrees with me... a decent chunk of money in Iraqi Freedom was invested into infrastructure repair and, especially, education. To achieve peace you need to make life worth more than death.
trentnix 6y ago
> We have the productivity to afford that; we just have chosen to consolidate it to a relative few. And absent the threat of violent force, how do you suppose we take that productivity from this relative few? My government threatens me with penalties and imprisonment if I don't give up my "fair share" via various taxes. And if I resist that, they use weapons to force me to comply. Are you not just trading one definition of war for another?
- wavefunction 6y ago
  I can't speak for your country but at least in the US the government is "We the People" or at least those of us interested enough to get involved whether by voting or running for office. If my democratic society has decided through an open and fair democratic process to require certain levels of taxation then it's my responsibility to society to meet those regulations. If I disagree with what has been collectively decided then my recourse is to convince enough of my fellow citizens to change the regulations. I don't see how that has anything to do with war. It seems like a very hyperbolic claim to make to me.
  - trentnix 6y ago
    my responsibility to society That's the rub. Your responsibility is determined by the mob. If you resist, the mob, via the justice system, forces you to comply with the threat of physical violence. If I resist with force, is that not war? If two of us resist with force, is that not war? If 10000 of us resist with force, is that not war? Was the Civil War not war? Is it really any more poetic when it's done by large groups of people than when it's done by a few?

by blunte 6y ago

nwienert 6y ago

I think the only reason you have all your needs met is due to war, and now you sit on a pile of blood-stained surplus with clean gloves and make faces as though better. It’s all pointless moralizing. Sure, prosperity may reduce war. I tend to think MAD and global trade have done most of the reducing. But just dismissing war as if you have some superior moral compass to anyone with absolutely no sign of any insight to reduce it, or understanding of why it happens, just reeks of privilege and cheap moralizing that I’d prefer stay on Twitter and Reddit.

xd 6y ago

"their basic needs met plus a little bit of cushion to enjoy life" Who's responsibility is it to meet these needs?

Shacklz 6y ago
Irrelevant of the answer, it helps in general if your efforts & hard work towards a better life aren't bombed into oblivion
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

rtx 6y ago

This is half true, today religion is the primary driver of conflict.

kleer001 6y ago
tribalism is the primary driver of conflict and has always been

hutzlibu 6y ago

" Stop the cycle of war and poverty, and then see how naturally malevolent people are." So far it is only a hypothesis, that war can be avoided if people just would not starve anymore. (I don't think there was really hunger in europe pre WW1 for example) Also, assuming we would distribute ressources equally (nevermind the political means to achieve that for a moment): It no doubt would be enough for everyone today. But the world population is already going steeply up - with people starving. So if it would go even much more up, if no one would be starving - would it then also be enough for 10 billion people? 20 billion? How much more roundup can the fields take? So don't get me wrong. A world with no wars and where no one has to starve is definitely a noble cause I agree to. I just thinkt it is not so easy, if it is possible at all, since there was never a time in human history without. We don't know whether it can work out at all.

InitialLastName 6y ago
> (I don't think there was really hunger in europe pre WW1 for example) IIRC gaining and ensuring continued access to food production centers in central Europe was one of Germany's primary motivating factors leading into WWI.
- hutzlibu 6y ago
  I learned it a bit different, but in either case - you don't have to starve if you can buy food. And the market was working in europe. So it was more about hunger for power. Because sure, owning something is better than having to buy something.
  - munk-a 6y ago
    Pre-WWI gets a lot of rose-tinted views due to fact that a lot of our accounts of living from that time come from well off folks - there isn't much literature and art that came out of the working classes - there were certainly a few good examples but it would become much more prominent when the great depression equalized classes and forced well educated folks to endure the same life the poor had been enduring. I would still consider WWI the last hurrah of prestige wars (where an essentially divine monarch instigated war for personal reasons and had the authority to enforce his will over the entire nation) but the hardships were real going into it. Content people tend to lean away from conflict - the marshall plan in europe seems to bear that out pretty clearly in my eyes. I think it's a rather successful demonstration of the fact that stability breeds peace and, honestly, the US military agrees with me... a decent chunk of money in Iraqi Freedom was invested into infrastructure repair and, especially, education. To achieve peace you need to make life worth more than death.

trentnix 6y ago

> We have the productivity to afford that; we just have chosen to consolidate it to a relative few. And absent the threat of violent force, how do you suppose we take that productivity from this relative few? My government threatens me with penalties and imprisonment if I don't give up my "fair share" via various taxes. And if I resist that, they use weapons to force me to comply. Are you not just trading one definition of war for another?

wavefunction 6y ago
I can't speak for your country but at least in the US the government is "We the People" or at least those of us interested enough to get involved whether by voting or running for office. If my democratic society has decided through an open and fair democratic process to require certain levels of taxation then it's my responsibility to society to meet those regulations. If I disagree with what has been collectively decided then my recourse is to convince enough of my fellow citizens to change the regulations. I don't see how that has anything to do with war. It seems like a very hyperbolic claim to make to me.
- trentnix 6y ago
  my responsibility to society That's the rub. Your responsibility is determined by the mob. If you resist, the mob, via the justice system, forces you to comply with the threat of physical violence. If I resist with force, is that not war? If two of us resist with force, is that not war? If 10000 of us resist with force, is that not war? Was the Civil War not war? Is it really any more poetic when it's done by large groups of people than when it's done by a few?