3 ms·

Imagine what we could do if we could find a way to put the same effort we do into killing other humans into helping other humans. Curiously, this simple idea i

Imagine what we could do if we could find a way to put the same effort we do into killing other humans into helping other humans. Curiously, this simple idea is not nearly as popular as one might think, a lot of people even think it is humourous.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jtotheh 3y ago
That's something I think about a lot. I don't know how we could do it but I think it should be priority to try and figure it out. Social and psychological question rather than technical/engineering.
sixQuarks 3y ago
Yeah crazy you’re being downvoted
- tpmx 3y ago
  No, it's really not. It's the incredibly naive "oh I just thought about this great idea, how about we just focus on not killing each other" that is just provokingly ignorant. I mean, there's are multiple related research fields with LOTS of smart people who have worked on this at an academical level for the past 70 years, give or take.
rainsford 3y ago
Actually I think a lot of people find that idea pretty appealing. What tends to be significantly less popular though is bringing up opposition to violence when it's defensive in nature like you just did. The US would have had a lot of opportunity in the 1940s to spend effort and resources on something other than 151 carriers if Japan had just kept to their own borders; it wasn't a lack of enlightenment or whatever you're suggesting.
Gibbon1 3y ago
WWII wasn't the united states idea.
methodical 3y ago
This may be a hot take, and one that's very biased, but I think people with bad intentions exist, and when they make a move against the interests of the good, we need to both be prepared to and willing to face that evil. This isn't to say that the US hasn't done countless things in the name of this idea that have been misguided at best, but there has been plenty of good things that have came from being a military superpower, and I truly believe WWII is an example of that. The Nazi military complex was incredibly strong, and without an equally strong response from the allies it's hard to see how we would've prevented them from going onto their larger goal of world domination. I don't think the incredible allied response was a bad thing, despite all of the bad things that happened as a part of that pursuing that interest. In my opinion, we can't unilaterally invest resources otherwise invested in our military without equally opening ourselves and our allies to opportunistic attack.
- Modified3019 3y ago
  Exactly. Imagine someone saying we shouldn't spend money on antibiotics and antibiotic research, because of some neotenic sentiment of "guys just think of how much better off we'd be if humans and flesh eating bacteria just got along". Well yeah, no shit. But that's not the world we live in. A favorite quote of mine comes to mind, while I'm not really a fan on most of Joseph de Maistre's ideas, the following perfectly encapsulates the reality of the world that I observe daily as an agronomist: >In the immense sphere of living things, the obvious rule is violence, a kind of inevitable frenzy which arms all things in mutua funera. Once you leave the world of insensible substances, you find the decree of violent death written on the very frontiers of life. Even in the vegetable kingdom, this law can be perceived: from the huge catalpa to the smallest of grasses, how many plants die and how many are killed! >But once you enter the animal kingdom, the law suddenly becomes frighteningly obvious. A power at once hidden and palpable appears constantly occupied in bringing to light the principle of life by violent means. In each great division of the animal world, it has chosen a certain number of animals charged with devouring the others; so there are insects of prey, reptiles of prey, birds of prey, fish of prey, and quadrupeds of prey. There is not an instant of time when some living creature is not devoured by another […] >Thus is worked out, from maggots up to man, the universal law of the violent destruction of living beings. The whole earth, continually steeped in blood, is nothing but an immense altar on which every living thing must be sacrificed without end, without restraint, without respite until the consummation of the world, until the extinction of evil, until the death of death. >Joseph de Maistre
psunavy03 3y ago
It's not nearly as popular because recent history has shown there are assholes like Vladimir Putin for whom "wanting to help other humans" is only showing weakness and a reason for him to try to overthrow you or conquer you. How anyone can promote pacifism as a credible foreign policy in 2023 boggles my mind. Ironically, the best quote is Trotsky: it doesn't matter whether or not you're interested in war, but whether or not war is interested in you. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
- sixQuarks 3y ago
  What about diplomacy? The US has done everything it could to provoke this invasion, going back to the fall of the USSR, when we broke the promise that NATO would not move one inch eastward.
mcpackieh 3y ago
It's a worse idea than "everybody could be a billionaire if we printed more money." That idea would actually technically work, except inflation would make it a pyrrhic victory. Conversely, "let's just all get along and stop fighting" is dead on arrival; anybody who isn't willing to fight will inevitably be conquered by those who are. You couldn't even implement this idea for a pyrrhic victory, the only prize you'd win for yourself is your bloody annihilation. People laugh when you tell them this idea because unexpected twists that subvert normal expectations are fundamentally humorous, and a seemingly mature adult suddenly saying some childish nonsense like that is an unexpected twist.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jtotheh 3y ago

That's something I think about a lot. I don't know how we could do it but I think it should be priority to try and figure it out. Social and psychological question rather than technical/engineering.

sixQuarks 3y ago

Yeah crazy you’re being downvoted

tpmx 3y ago
No, it's really not. It's the incredibly naive "oh I just thought about this great idea, how about we just focus on not killing each other" that is just provokingly ignorant. I mean, there's are multiple related research fields with LOTS of smart people who have worked on this at an academical level for the past 70 years, give or take.

rainsford 3y ago

Actually I think a lot of people find that idea pretty appealing. What tends to be significantly less popular though is bringing up opposition to violence when it's defensive in nature like you just did. The US would have had a lot of opportunity in the 1940s to spend effort and resources on something other than 151 carriers if Japan had just kept to their own borders; it wasn't a lack of enlightenment or whatever you're suggesting.

Gibbon1 3y ago

WWII wasn't the united states idea.

methodical 3y ago

This may be a hot take, and one that's very biased, but I think people with bad intentions exist, and when they make a move against the interests of the good, we need to both be prepared to and willing to face that evil. This isn't to say that the US hasn't done countless things in the name of this idea that have been misguided at best, but there has been plenty of good things that have came from being a military superpower, and I truly believe WWII is an example of that. The Nazi military complex was incredibly strong, and without an equally strong response from the allies it's hard to see how we would've prevented them from going onto their larger goal of world domination. I don't think the incredible allied response was a bad thing, despite all of the bad things that happened as a part of that pursuing that interest. In my opinion, we can't unilaterally invest resources otherwise invested in our military without equally opening ourselves and our allies to opportunistic attack.

Modified3019 3y ago
Exactly. Imagine someone saying we shouldn't spend money on antibiotics and antibiotic research, because of some neotenic sentiment of "guys just think of how much better off we'd be if humans and flesh eating bacteria just got along". Well yeah, no shit. But that's not the world we live in. A favorite quote of mine comes to mind, while I'm not really a fan on most of Joseph de Maistre's ideas, the following perfectly encapsulates the reality of the world that I observe daily as an agronomist: >In the immense sphere of living things, the obvious rule is violence, a kind of inevitable frenzy which arms all things in mutua funera. Once you leave the world of insensible substances, you find the decree of violent death written on the very frontiers of life. Even in the vegetable kingdom, this law can be perceived: from the huge catalpa to the smallest of grasses, how many plants die and how many are killed! >But once you enter the animal kingdom, the law suddenly becomes frighteningly obvious. A power at once hidden and palpable appears constantly occupied in bringing to light the principle of life by violent means. In each great division of the animal world, it has chosen a certain number of animals charged with devouring the others; so there are insects of prey, reptiles of prey, birds of prey, fish of prey, and quadrupeds of prey. There is not an instant of time when some living creature is not devoured by another […] >Thus is worked out, from maggots up to man, the universal law of the violent destruction of living beings. The whole earth, continually steeped in blood, is nothing but an immense altar on which every living thing must be sacrificed without end, without restraint, without respite until the consummation of the world, until the extinction of evil, until the death of death. >Joseph de Maistre

psunavy03 3y ago

It's not nearly as popular because recent history has shown there are assholes like Vladimir Putin for whom "wanting to help other humans" is only showing weakness and a reason for him to try to overthrow you or conquer you. How anyone can promote pacifism as a credible foreign policy in 2023 boggles my mind. Ironically, the best quote is Trotsky: it doesn't matter whether or not you're interested in war, but whether or not war is interested in you. Si vis pacem, para bellum.

sixQuarks 3y ago
What about diplomacy? The US has done everything it could to provoke this invasion, going back to the fall of the USSR, when we broke the promise that NATO would not move one inch eastward.

mcpackieh 3y ago

It's a worse idea than "everybody could be a billionaire if we printed more money." That idea would actually technically work, except inflation would make it a pyrrhic victory. Conversely, "let's just all get along and stop fighting" is dead on arrival; anybody who isn't willing to fight will inevitably be conquered by those who are. You couldn't even implement this idea for a pyrrhic victory, the only prize you'd win for yourself is your bloody annihilation. People laugh when you tell them this idea because unexpected twists that subvert normal expectations are fundamentally humorous, and a seemingly mature adult suddenly saying some childish nonsense like that is an unexpected twist.