4 ms·

> 'World Peace' is not just a pipe dream, it's a fantasy that it is ever anything we'd want - it would require global stasis, enforced by some kind of extreme g

by worik 5y ago

> 'World Peace' is not just a pipe dream, it's a fantasy that it is ever anything we'd want - it would require global stasis, enforced by some kind of extreme global authoritarianism that would keep the 'have nots' in the have-not pile, and the have's in the have pile forever. Or everyone to always be happy with each other, even if that means some of them starve to death due to lack of resources (extreme brainwashing?). I really do not follow your argument. Turning it around world peace requires authoritarian enforcement of global inequality. The argument as presented is a very depressing outlook on humanity. My personal experience is the exact opposite. Wars (and other social chaos) are organised by a small minority. The vast overwhelming majority of us want peace

lazide 5y ago
and how do you propose to identify and eliminate that small minority exactly? Near as I can tell, every system creates a small minority that drives it, and near as I can tell it’s a fundamental requirement of all human organizational systems for them to be effective. The scale we are at, everything happens through systems of some kind. The small number of folks involved are either de jure (by rule) or de facto (in fact) the ones who make the actual decisions required for the organization to respond, move forward, act. If this is true, then ‘the small number of people organizing the social chaos’ are fundamental to the entire system. Removing them may change things for a time, but not for very long, and may (often if you look at the historic of revolutions) replace them with even worse. I don’t think it’s depressing, any more than recognizing that zebras get eaten by leopards. Not recognizing or avoiding it just leads to further chaos and damage. It would not help anyone (including zebras or leopards) to put guards out on the Serengeti to ‘enforce the peace’ for instance. At least not for very long.
- sitkack 5y ago
  I think we need new structures of power that do not allow small groups of bad folks to do bad things.
  - lazide 5y ago
    I wish you luck! Just don’t lead a violent revolution based on a good-sounding-on-paper idea near me ok? Especially since the most murderery ones tend to come from those.

by worik 5y ago

lazide 5y ago

and how do you propose to identify and eliminate that small minority exactly? Near as I can tell, every system creates a small minority that drives it, and near as I can tell it’s a fundamental requirement of all human organizational systems for them to be effective. The scale we are at, everything happens through systems of some kind. The small number of folks involved are either de jure (by rule) or de facto (in fact) the ones who make the actual decisions required for the organization to respond, move forward, act. If this is true, then ‘the small number of people organizing the social chaos’ are fundamental to the entire system. Removing them may change things for a time, but not for very long, and may (often if you look at the historic of revolutions) replace them with even worse. I don’t think it’s depressing, any more than recognizing that zebras get eaten by leopards. Not recognizing or avoiding it just leads to further chaos and damage. It would not help anyone (including zebras or leopards) to put guards out on the Serengeti to ‘enforce the peace’ for instance. At least not for very long.

sitkack 5y ago
I think we need new structures of power that do not allow small groups of bad folks to do bad things.
- lazide 5y ago
  I wish you luck! Just don’t lead a violent revolution based on a good-sounding-on-paper idea near me ok? Especially since the most murderery ones tend to come from those.