8 ms·

This is very true. I think for young people it's very difficult to appreciate that we live on the knife's edge of peace. Peace is not the natural human conditio

This is very true. I think for young people it's very difficult to appreciate that we live on the knife's edge of peace. Peace is not the natural human condition, and vast numbers of people are ready and willing to commit incredible violence and atrocities in the name of their tribe. Absolutely nothing about human nature has changed since the uncountable wars we have fought since our very first moments as a species. Peace exists only in the liminal space between great violence and terrible powers.

hyperdimension 5y ago
> knife's edge of peace This phrasing reminded me of a comment I favorited a while ago, so I went through my favorited comments and found it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5847789 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5847789 "It took thousands of years of human civilisation before we got relatively benign governments. Power structures are not inherently benign; they must constantly be pressured to prevent malignant people using them to leverage their actions. A non-authoritarian government is an historical anomaly. It's a ball balanced on top of a hill, pushed there by the deaths of millions, and kept there by the vigilance of those who care. Please start caring."
- dougmwne 5y ago
  Indeed. Or like the ISS in low earth orbit. It took enormous energy to put it into that decaying orbit and constant infusions of energy to keep it there. We will come crashing down to earth quite quickly if we can't keep up the balance.
howmayiannoyyou 5y ago
Peace is the natural human condition in small groups. As the groups increase in size so does competition, insecurity and conflicts of interest. Its this dynamic that gives rise to conflating our own peaceful orbits with tribal or state rivalry; and conversely its often an abused imbalance of our interpersonal relationships that gives rise to individual leaders with power compulsivity.
- dougmwne 5y ago
  Oh is it now? I'm so happy for you and your harmonious family.
- prepend 5y ago
  > Peace is the natural human condition in small groups. I don’t think this is true. I read Sapiens by Harari and he presents lots of info on how early man, living in small groups was very violent. With gravesites from the time showing violent deaths at young ages. I romantically would like to think this but believe the reality is that humans are violent and it’s large civilizations with complicated rule of law and interdependency is the reason for peace. Sort of the Leviathan argument that humans are evil and it’s a struggle to overcome and improve on that nature. Although I hope that one day this changes and we eventually evolve to be more peaceful. Evolutionarily speaking I think violence was too much of a shortcut to survival so mammals evolved against peace.
  - dougmwne 5y ago
    Yes, peace is a technology for sure.
A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
Edge of peace. I like that phrase. I may end up borrowing it. I think overall I agree with your post. We truly do suck as a species. The past few decades were a massive aberration in our history ( and even that relatively peaceful -- for a westerner -- period saw some horrifying conflicts that just did not make the front pages ). I do not wish for another major conflict. No sane person does. We should do what we can to prevent it. Still, I personally see one on the horizon. Best I can do is talk to my social circle, but even that seems futile. The actual decisions about matters like these happen way outside those.
edrxty 5y ago
Disagree. I'm in the 'young' bracket here but researching geopolitics/military is something of a hobby for me. I'm not arguing that the young are all like me, but rather that I applaud my generation for being skeptical, at least from an intervention POV. I still side strongly with Ukraine but this is a complex issue and rolling the tanks against a country with less GDP than NY does not make the world inherently safer. The older generations, on the other hand, were raised in the context of Russia being a world power while at this time they've revealed themselves to be objectively not. However, a Sino-Russian alliance would be an absolute nightmare scenario and direct military involvement would give China a possible excuse to back Russia. As long as they remain neutral-ish then it's safe to let this play out, particularly given how things are going so far. Now, the area that concerns me is how many are openly supporting Russia. Skepticism is great but I don't think there's any reason to voice support for Russia at this time.
- ramesh31 5y ago
  >I still side strongly with Ukraine but this is a complex issue and rolling the tanks against a country with less GDP than NY does not make the world inherently safer. Putin takes Luhansk and Donestsk, consolidates the southern coast, and links to Transnistria. Ukraine is now a landlocked welfare case for Europe, with millions of refugees streaming out and a government in collapse. Just like that, Russia has a salient into Western europe, and the world order of national sovereignty comes to an end. There is no complexity to the issue. This is the clearest, most mortal threat to Western civilization since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Do not fall for "let's hear both sides" whataboutism. It doesn't happen often, but sometimes in life there is simply right and wrong.
  - edrxty 5y ago
    That's why I left the "at this time" caveat in there. Yeah, if the Russian military actually gets its shit together and manages an offensive that achieves that we need to reevaluate but...I don't think they have any chance of pulling that off. Their troops have spent weeks retreating from a meat grinder with nonexistent morale and will be asked to do it all again, "but it'll work this time". Further, would you take landlocked Ukraine and possible welfare state over a Sino-Russian axis? I think I would. This isn't "let's hear both sides" it's "this will get really nasty if we pull the old so-i-started-blasting strategy."
nemothekid 5y ago
>We live on the knife's edge of peace Peace for who? America just formally ended a 20 year long war, with very little to show for it. Someone who is 18 today, has only known America in a time of war. How can you call this peace? (I know how, it's because you only talk about peace as peace for western nations.) Anyone would immediately be skeptical to the thought that we should immediately enter another war several thousand miles away. It's only when majority white western christians are being blown up that we are at the "knife's edge of peace". What is it called when it's muslims in the middle east or northern africa being blown up? I'm not convinced America needs to be proactive in an engagement with Russia to hold up what you consider "the knife's edge of peace".
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  > How can you call this peace? I think you already know the answer to that. When the 20 year old war is mostly all about sending some soldiers over to the middle east to bomb it, then it doesn't really feel like a war. For people in the US who choose to ignore it, they absolutely live in peace every day.
- dash2 5y ago
  You, too, may experience a difference if war comes not for a faraway people whom you like to feel indignant about, but to your own country, landing on your doorstep and destroying your neighbourhood. Perhaps it's very wrong that you will feel differently. But you will. That is what the knife edge means. Using the miseries of far-off people to encourage cowardice or putting your head in the sand is wrong, and foolish.
- lolinder 5y ago
  Afghanistan and Iraq were and remained local conflicts. Twice in the last century and once in the century before (Napoleon), a local conflict in Europe escalated into a world war in which millions died in the span of a few years. That doesn't make the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq right or just (I don't believe they were), but Europe has long been an extremely dangerous powder keg. We have had relative peace in the last 70 years because European great powers have successfully avoided actively shooting at each other. This move by Russia is a major threat to that stability and is categorically different than the invasions in the Middle East not because of race but because of the likelihood of escalation.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
The people who came of age after the internet but before it was censored into something safe enough to sell ads on are far more aware of how nasty things can be than the people before and since. If anyone is gonna set out on a path of "real violence" it's likely going to be a subgroup of millennials. Edit: the above only applies to the US
pessimizer 5y ago
> I think for young people it's very difficult to appreciate that we live on the knife's edge of peace. That doesn't seem like thought that supports the position of the old, as characterized here, who are encouraging the escalation of a war against a nuclear power with a ruined economy. I blame the generational gap on that particular US generation who has lived through major wars but never had to worry about war on their own territory, who have gone through wars where only an extreme minority have had to participate (and that being privileged enough to be in college or to have an important job was enough to get you out of participation), and who have been hammered by propaganda their entire lives that the final battle would be the commies vs the bootstrappers. Half of them are praying that this will be the end of the world, like God said it would be. They supported every war except Vietnam, because Vietnam was the only war they were in danger of participating in. Those wars didn't affect them badly at all, in fact the wars helped the economy because everybody got jobs creating expensive things that would be burned (in the occupied homes of Iraqi families.) I would call them a reflection of Russian nationalist aggression, but they're really not, because Russians have known suffering from war. Russians have pretty good excuses not to want NATO weapons, missile defense systems, and troops stationed on their border. Americans are afraid of their vital fluids being corrupted by the demonic Russians and their sole goal of creating discord by spreading propaganda that the issues that everybody who isn't an old wealthy retired homeowner is concerned about aren't something that should be completely ignored. Young people generally see them as insane chickenhawks that are useless domestically and hyperaggressive internationally, and rightfully so.

hyperdimension 5y ago

> knife's edge of peace This phrasing reminded me of a comment I favorited a while ago, so I went through my favorited comments and found it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5847789 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5847789 "It took thousands of years of human civilisation before we got relatively benign governments. Power structures are not inherently benign; they must constantly be pressured to prevent malignant people using them to leverage their actions. A non-authoritarian government is an historical anomaly. It's a ball balanced on top of a hill, pushed there by the deaths of millions, and kept there by the vigilance of those who care. Please start caring."

dougmwne 5y ago
Indeed. Or like the ISS in low earth orbit. It took enormous energy to put it into that decaying orbit and constant infusions of energy to keep it there. We will come crashing down to earth quite quickly if we can't keep up the balance.

howmayiannoyyou 5y ago

Peace is the natural human condition in small groups. As the groups increase in size so does competition, insecurity and conflicts of interest. Its this dynamic that gives rise to conflating our own peaceful orbits with tribal or state rivalry; and conversely its often an abused imbalance of our interpersonal relationships that gives rise to individual leaders with power compulsivity.

dougmwne 5y ago
Oh is it now? I'm so happy for you and your harmonious family.
prepend 5y ago
> Peace is the natural human condition in small groups. I don’t think this is true. I read Sapiens by Harari and he presents lots of info on how early man, living in small groups was very violent. With gravesites from the time showing violent deaths at young ages. I romantically would like to think this but believe the reality is that humans are violent and it’s large civilizations with complicated rule of law and interdependency is the reason for peace. Sort of the Leviathan argument that humans are evil and it’s a struggle to overcome and improve on that nature. Although I hope that one day this changes and we eventually evolve to be more peaceful. Evolutionarily speaking I think violence was too much of a shortcut to survival so mammals evolved against peace.
- dougmwne 5y ago
  Yes, peace is a technology for sure.

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago

Edge of peace. I like that phrase. I may end up borrowing it. I think overall I agree with your post. We truly do suck as a species. The past few decades were a massive aberration in our history ( and even that relatively peaceful -- for a westerner -- period saw some horrifying conflicts that just did not make the front pages ). I do not wish for another major conflict. No sane person does. We should do what we can to prevent it. Still, I personally see one on the horizon. Best I can do is talk to my social circle, but even that seems futile. The actual decisions about matters like these happen way outside those.

edrxty 5y ago

Disagree. I'm in the 'young' bracket here but researching geopolitics/military is something of a hobby for me. I'm not arguing that the young are all like me, but rather that I applaud my generation for being skeptical, at least from an intervention POV. I still side strongly with Ukraine but this is a complex issue and rolling the tanks against a country with less GDP than NY does not make the world inherently safer. The older generations, on the other hand, were raised in the context of Russia being a world power while at this time they've revealed themselves to be objectively not. However, a Sino-Russian alliance would be an absolute nightmare scenario and direct military involvement would give China a possible excuse to back Russia. As long as they remain neutral-ish then it's safe to let this play out, particularly given how things are going so far. Now, the area that concerns me is how many are openly supporting Russia. Skepticism is great but I don't think there's any reason to voice support for Russia at this time.

ramesh31 5y ago
>I still side strongly with Ukraine but this is a complex issue and rolling the tanks against a country with less GDP than NY does not make the world inherently safer. Putin takes Luhansk and Donestsk, consolidates the southern coast, and links to Transnistria. Ukraine is now a landlocked welfare case for Europe, with millions of refugees streaming out and a government in collapse. Just like that, Russia has a salient into Western europe, and the world order of national sovereignty comes to an end. There is no complexity to the issue. This is the clearest, most mortal threat to Western civilization since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Do not fall for "let's hear both sides" whataboutism. It doesn't happen often, but sometimes in life there is simply right and wrong.
- edrxty 5y ago
  That's why I left the "at this time" caveat in there. Yeah, if the Russian military actually gets its shit together and manages an offensive that achieves that we need to reevaluate but...I don't think they have any chance of pulling that off. Their troops have spent weeks retreating from a meat grinder with nonexistent morale and will be asked to do it all again, "but it'll work this time". Further, would you take landlocked Ukraine and possible welfare state over a Sino-Russian axis? I think I would. This isn't "let's hear both sides" it's "this will get really nasty if we pull the old so-i-started-blasting strategy."

nemothekid 5y ago

>We live on the knife's edge of peace Peace for who? America just formally ended a 20 year long war, with very little to show for it. Someone who is 18 today, has only known America in a time of war. How can you call this peace? (I know how, it's because you only talk about peace as peace for western nations.) Anyone would immediately be skeptical to the thought that we should immediately enter another war several thousand miles away. It's only when majority white western christians are being blown up that we are at the "knife's edge of peace". What is it called when it's muslims in the middle east or northern africa being blown up? I'm not convinced America needs to be proactive in an engagement with Russia to hold up what you consider "the knife's edge of peace".

rootusrootus 5y ago
> How can you call this peace? I think you already know the answer to that. When the 20 year old war is mostly all about sending some soldiers over to the middle east to bomb it, then it doesn't really feel like a war. For people in the US who choose to ignore it, they absolutely live in peace every day.
dash2 5y ago
You, too, may experience a difference if war comes not for a faraway people whom you like to feel indignant about, but to your own country, landing on your doorstep and destroying your neighbourhood. Perhaps it's very wrong that you will feel differently. But you will. That is what the knife edge means. Using the miseries of far-off people to encourage cowardice or putting your head in the sand is wrong, and foolish.
lolinder 5y ago
Afghanistan and Iraq were and remained local conflicts. Twice in the last century and once in the century before (Napoleon), a local conflict in Europe escalated into a world war in which millions died in the span of a few years. That doesn't make the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq right or just (I don't believe they were), but Europe has long been an extremely dangerous powder keg. We have had relative peace in the last 70 years because European great powers have successfully avoided actively shooting at each other. This move by Russia is a major threat to that stability and is categorically different than the invasions in the Middle East not because of race but because of the likelihood of escalation.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

The people who came of age after the internet but before it was censored into something safe enough to sell ads on are far more aware of how nasty things can be than the people before and since. If anyone is gonna set out on a path of "real violence" it's likely going to be a subgroup of millennials. Edit: the above only applies to the US

pessimizer 5y ago

> I think for young people it's very difficult to appreciate that we live on the knife's edge of peace. That doesn't seem like thought that supports the position of the old, as characterized here, who are encouraging the escalation of a war against a nuclear power with a ruined economy. I blame the generational gap on that particular US generation who has lived through major wars but never had to worry about war on their own territory, who have gone through wars where only an extreme minority have had to participate (and that being privileged enough to be in college or to have an important job was enough to get you out of participation), and who have been hammered by propaganda their entire lives that the final battle would be the commies vs the bootstrappers. Half of them are praying that this will be the end of the world, like God said it would be. They supported every war except Vietnam, because Vietnam was the only war they were in danger of participating in. Those wars didn't affect them badly at all, in fact the wars helped the economy because everybody got jobs creating expensive things that would be burned (in the occupied homes of Iraqi families.) I would call them a reflection of Russian nationalist aggression, but they're really not, because Russians have known suffering from war. Russians have pretty good excuses not to want NATO weapons, missile defense systems, and troops stationed on their border. Americans are afraid of their vital fluids being corrupted by the demonic Russians and their sole goal of creating discord by spreading propaganda that the issues that everybody who isn't an old wealthy retired homeowner is concerned about aren't something that should be completely ignored. Young people generally see them as insane chickenhawks that are useless domestically and hyperaggressive internationally, and rightfully so.