7 ms·

A connected world is not a guaranteed sufficient condition for peace. But that does not mean it's not a necessary condition for peace. One could argue that with

A connected world is not a guaranteed sufficient condition for peace. But that does not mean it's not a necessary condition for peace. One could argue that without economic interconnectivity, Europe could have fought WW1 much earlier, or would have had wars much more often.

madrox 4y ago
While I ultimately believe you're correct (along with open borders and travel) I wish there were more rigorous proofs that this were the case. I think about the line in West Wing: "Free trade is essential for human rights...the end of that sentence is 'we hope because nothing else has worked.' ...Chinese political prisoners are going to be sewing soccer balls with their teeth whether we sell them cheeseburgers or not, so let's sell them cheeseburgers." While war and human rights are different, they're also pretty correlated.
- FooBarWidget 4y ago
  Human rights is more than just political rights or speech. Hundreds of millions of Chinese lifted out of poverty is a huge win for human rights. When you're poor, you're not free. Having grown up with dirty streets and beggars, you can't possibly imagine how big a deal it is for me to see my hometown transforming into a modern metropolis, and how my grandparents-in-law (in a different city, in a rural area) finaly have... Wait for it... A fscking toilet instead of a hole in the ground, as well as free health insurance. To me and millions of Chinese, these matters much more than being able to vote for the president. A recent study by the Democracy Perception Index shows that Chinese feel that their country is democratic. But this is ludicrous, how can this be? It's because Chinese define democracy by whether they believe their government works for their interest and whether they yield good results, not by how their government is elected. It's not just propaganda; this result is consistent with earlier studies by Harvard and York University, as well as by my own experience on the ground. https://latana.com/democracy-perception-index/ https://latana.com/democracy-perception-index/ The concept of 民主 is much more in line with the 19th century definition of democracy, when the concept was brought to China. It was only in the latter half of the 20th century that (in the west) democracy became synonymous with electorialism. So, not commenting on any other countries. But in case of China, Chinese view democracy and human rights differently. I think we should let them.
  - azinman2 4y ago
    [flagged]
  - madrox 4y ago
    > It's because Chinese define democracy by whether they believe their government works for their interest and whether they yield good results, not by how their government is elected. I'm going to be thinking about this sentence for the rest of my life
    - MrLeap 4y ago
      That sentence stuck out to me too. It makes me wonder if the nature of America's representative democracy lowers the threshold by which our elected officials actually have to do a good job / serve the will of the people. They constantly fall short, even of the narrow interests of whatever their particular constituency is. But there's kind of a floor where we just throw up our hands and say "WELL THEY WERE VOTED IN" Do our officials receive less psychic pressure? Does the Chinese government work harder to align the populous' desires with their actions? Pretty fascinating rabbit holes.
      - mrslave 4y ago
        Study: Congress literally doesn’t care what you think[0] Their study took data from nearly 2000 public opinion surveys and compared it to the policies that ended up becoming law. In other words, they compared what the public wanted to what the government actually did. What they found was extremely unsettling: The opinions of 90% of Americans have essentially no impact at all. [0] https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba/ https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba/
        astrange 4y ago
        That study is false. https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/gilens-page-oligarchy-study https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/gilens-page-oligarchy-...
      - 4y ago
- mlyle 4y ago
  Interconnectedness means that there's additional price everyone pays for (even a small) conflict erupting, and social ties that can disarm smaller conflicts before they get large. On the other hand, the cost of significant armed conflict is already very, very high.
- alldayeveryday 4y ago
- munk-a 4y ago
  Interconnectedness exposes your countrymen more to other countries cultures - it is much harder to war against a people who you can't paint as a demonic "other". I don't really think that the private industrial sourcing concerns have any real pressure to apply against war - those industries aren't the government and, even with modern supply chain minimalism, it'll take a while for one or two industry sectors to really cause widespread pain to an economy. Those personal connections across borders, though, those are the best defense against war.
  - eastbound 4y ago
    There are ethnic rivalries today in France. I’ll spare you the list, but lowly are paying with their life for some, and girls with their intimacy. It’s systematic in most big cities, anyone who hasn’t been bullied isn’t really living the diversity (spare me the “I know a guy and he’s very nice” – you haven’t lived the real diversity, the unchosen one). Sometimes, when it doesn’t touch you, you have some fancy theoretical poetry about it; the closer you are, the more you notice how the other is, indeed, wow, gruesome. Not all cultures can mix.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > wish there were more rigorous proofs It's a deep area of research with conflicting results [1][2]. [1] https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.854.279&rep=rep1&type=pdf https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.85... [2] https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=oRbfdWw4ozUC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=trade+peace&ots=V88GyEeV6Q&sig=-GXryKM6MFf80INx-dtkfe-q73w#v=onepage&q=trade%20peace&f=false https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=oRbfdWw4ozUC&oi=...
- IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago
  Ah... West Wing. Even the cynicism was better than it is in reality.
- makin17 4y ago
  I would not go so far as to call selling our time to produce what ads and marketing create demand for as free trade. Polls show little interest in making McDoubles and tons of interest in healthcare and education jobs. Somehow there’s always financing for cheap consumer jobs while costly jobs face more uncertainty: https://twitter.com/sama/status/1505597901011005442 https://twitter.com/sama/status/1505597901011005442 The market is unfalsifiable like a religion now. Free trade is captured by rent seekers who believe past success in one special context makes them the best person to handle any context. The memes are no longer based in historical religion, but the lack of critical challenge and blind allegiance to normal humans self aggrandizing story, being dictated at by they who live privileged lives far away is as traditional as it gets. I’d like to see a rescope of political power that better conforms to where all this value comes from: https://www.unlv.edu/news/article/future-american-city-state https://www.unlv.edu/news/article/future-american-city-state https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700 https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the... Coddling certain sensibilities and foisting nostalgia driven politics on the masses, tacit ageism towards youth through hand me down gossip and schooling of industrialist owners who need cheaper labor, are hardly hallmarks of a free society. We moved manufacturing into rural areas a century ago seeking cheaper labor, then overseas for the same reason. Human agency is dictated by financiers empowered by political tradition. There’s no theory I know of that concludes they are absolutely making sound choices for anyone but themselves. The blind faith in grand schemes thing has got to go.
christkv 4y ago
Eh have you looked at the list of wars in Europe in the 19th century?
- FooBarWidget 4y ago
  Well multiply that by 3x if there were no interconnectedness.
  - nautilius 4y ago
    I'm not sure you understand what a necessary condition is.
  - csb6 4y ago
    Why by 3? Is there any kind of basis for that number or is it just speculation?
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  As I recall, it was much less that previous centuries. I'd start the 19th century after the Napoleon wars for this argument, of course.
nautilius 4y ago
Easily disproven by all the countries that were not constantly at war despite low connectedness. In the (absurd) limit: There was no war between Australia and the Roman Empire in 100BC. More practical: existence of a Cold War in the 20th century.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

madrox 4y ago

While I ultimately believe you're correct (along with open borders and travel) I wish there were more rigorous proofs that this were the case. I think about the line in West Wing: "Free trade is essential for human rights...the end of that sentence is 'we hope because nothing else has worked.' ...Chinese political prisoners are going to be sewing soccer balls with their teeth whether we sell them cheeseburgers or not, so let's sell them cheeseburgers." While war and human rights are different, they're also pretty correlated.

FooBarWidget 4y ago
Human rights is more than just political rights or speech. Hundreds of millions of Chinese lifted out of poverty is a huge win for human rights. When you're poor, you're not free. Having grown up with dirty streets and beggars, you can't possibly imagine how big a deal it is for me to see my hometown transforming into a modern metropolis, and how my grandparents-in-law (in a different city, in a rural area) finaly have... Wait for it... A fscking toilet instead of a hole in the ground, as well as free health insurance. To me and millions of Chinese, these matters much more than being able to vote for the president. A recent study by the Democracy Perception Index shows that Chinese feel that their country is democratic. But this is ludicrous, how can this be? It's because Chinese define democracy by whether they believe their government works for their interest and whether they yield good results, not by how their government is elected. It's not just propaganda; this result is consistent with earlier studies by Harvard and York University, as well as by my own experience on the ground. https://latana.com/democracy-perception-index/ https://latana.com/democracy-perception-index/ The concept of 民主 is much more in line with the 19th century definition of democracy, when the concept was brought to China. It was only in the latter half of the 20th century that (in the west) democracy became synonymous with electorialism. So, not commenting on any other countries. But in case of China, Chinese view democracy and human rights differently. I think we should let them.
- azinman2 4y ago
  [flagged]
- madrox 4y ago
  > It's because Chinese define democracy by whether they believe their government works for their interest and whether they yield good results, not by how their government is elected. I'm going to be thinking about this sentence for the rest of my life
  - MrLeap 4y ago
    That sentence stuck out to me too. It makes me wonder if the nature of America's representative democracy lowers the threshold by which our elected officials actually have to do a good job / serve the will of the people. They constantly fall short, even of the narrow interests of whatever their particular constituency is. But there's kind of a floor where we just throw up our hands and say "WELL THEY WERE VOTED IN" Do our officials receive less psychic pressure? Does the Chinese government work harder to align the populous' desires with their actions? Pretty fascinating rabbit holes.
    - mrslave 4y ago
      Study: Congress literally doesn’t care what you think[0] Their study took data from nearly 2000 public opinion surveys and compared it to the policies that ended up becoming law. In other words, they compared what the public wanted to what the government actually did. What they found was extremely unsettling: The opinions of 90% of Americans have essentially no impact at all. [0] https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba/ https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba/
      - astrange 4y ago
        That study is false. https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/gilens-page-oligarchy-study https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/gilens-page-oligarchy-...
    - 4y ago
mlyle 4y ago
Interconnectedness means that there's additional price everyone pays for (even a small) conflict erupting, and social ties that can disarm smaller conflicts before they get large. On the other hand, the cost of significant armed conflict is already very, very high.
alldayeveryday 4y ago
munk-a 4y ago
Interconnectedness exposes your countrymen more to other countries cultures - it is much harder to war against a people who you can't paint as a demonic "other". I don't really think that the private industrial sourcing concerns have any real pressure to apply against war - those industries aren't the government and, even with modern supply chain minimalism, it'll take a while for one or two industry sectors to really cause widespread pain to an economy. Those personal connections across borders, though, those are the best defense against war.
- eastbound 4y ago
  There are ethnic rivalries today in France. I’ll spare you the list, but lowly are paying with their life for some, and girls with their intimacy. It’s systematic in most big cities, anyone who hasn’t been bullied isn’t really living the diversity (spare me the “I know a guy and he’s very nice” – you haven’t lived the real diversity, the unchosen one). Sometimes, when it doesn’t touch you, you have some fancy theoretical poetry about it; the closer you are, the more you notice how the other is, indeed, wow, gruesome. Not all cultures can mix.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> wish there were more rigorous proofs It's a deep area of research with conflicting results [1][2]. [1] https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.854.279&rep=rep1&type=pdf https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.85... [2] https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=oRbfdWw4ozUC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=trade+peace&ots=V88GyEeV6Q&sig=-GXryKM6MFf80INx-dtkfe-q73w#v=onepage&q=trade%20peace&f=false https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=oRbfdWw4ozUC&oi=...
IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago
Ah... West Wing. Even the cynicism was better than it is in reality.
makin17 4y ago
I would not go so far as to call selling our time to produce what ads and marketing create demand for as free trade. Polls show little interest in making McDoubles and tons of interest in healthcare and education jobs. Somehow there’s always financing for cheap consumer jobs while costly jobs face more uncertainty: https://twitter.com/sama/status/1505597901011005442 https://twitter.com/sama/status/1505597901011005442 The market is unfalsifiable like a religion now. Free trade is captured by rent seekers who believe past success in one special context makes them the best person to handle any context. The memes are no longer based in historical religion, but the lack of critical challenge and blind allegiance to normal humans self aggrandizing story, being dictated at by they who live privileged lives far away is as traditional as it gets. I’d like to see a rescope of political power that better conforms to where all this value comes from: https://www.unlv.edu/news/article/future-american-city-state https://www.unlv.edu/news/article/future-american-city-state https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700 https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the... Coddling certain sensibilities and foisting nostalgia driven politics on the masses, tacit ageism towards youth through hand me down gossip and schooling of industrialist owners who need cheaper labor, are hardly hallmarks of a free society. We moved manufacturing into rural areas a century ago seeking cheaper labor, then overseas for the same reason. Human agency is dictated by financiers empowered by political tradition. There’s no theory I know of that concludes they are absolutely making sound choices for anyone but themselves. The blind faith in grand schemes thing has got to go.

christkv 4y ago

Eh have you looked at the list of wars in Europe in the 19th century?

FooBarWidget 4y ago
Well multiply that by 3x if there were no interconnectedness.
- nautilius 4y ago
  I'm not sure you understand what a necessary condition is.
- csb6 4y ago
  Why by 3? Is there any kind of basis for that number or is it just speculation?
BurningFrog 4y ago
As I recall, it was much less that previous centuries. I'd start the 19th century after the Napoleon wars for this argument, of course.

nautilius 4y ago

Easily disproven by all the countries that were not constantly at war despite low connectedness. In the (absurd) limit: There was no war between Australia and the Roman Empire in 100BC. More practical: existence of a Cold War in the 20th century.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]