4 ms·

It's astounding to me that we're capable of flying a remote vehicle on a literally other planet, but we also kill each other in large numbers over whose god is

It's astounding to me that we're capable of flying a remote vehicle on a literally other planet, but we also kill each other in large numbers over whose god is correct. Genuinely astounding to me, and slightly disappointing.

Mountain_Skies 3y ago
We kill for lots of reasons, some as trivial as wanting the pocket change another person has on them.
c22 3y ago
No doubt someday we'll be killing people on other planets with remote vehicles.
OmarShehata 3y ago
"killing each other over whose god is correct" is a profound misunderstanding of humanity. That's not why humans kill each other now, or in any time in history. It is and always has been simple & rational game theory: fear of the other tribe killing you for your resources, or just simply because they're afraid you might kill them for _their_ resources. For example, this is (one of) the core reasons of why peace in Israel/Palestine is so hard (each side fears accepting sovereignty of the other side means they will continue to encroach and wipe them out). Humans are pretty clever and ingenious at all levels
- wolverine876 3y ago
  That's true sometimes, but sometimes people just want to take what their neighbors have. Russia's government faced no risk of Ukraine attacking, or NATO for that matter. They just wanted Ukraine.
  - rpmisms 3y ago
    That's reductive. I'd compare it to the Cuban missile crisis. We were basically pointing a gun at their heads.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      It's just false. There was no way NATO or Ukraine was attacking Russia, in ten thousand years. NATO can barely be bothered to fund their militaries even now, and the US Republican party can't be bothered to fund Ukraine. Even after Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014 (and Georgia before that) the NATO countries were still making gas and other trade deals, thinking they would bring Russia into the fold of peaceful, free-trading nations. Trump tried to work with Putin; Obama did the big 'reset', etc., etc.
    - kibwen 3y ago
      "How dare these other countries respond to my aggression by forming a defensive pact to defend against my aggression! I'll aggress them for that!" Russia is the one pointing the gun is this scenario, but they sure do love to pretend otherwise.
      - rpmisms 3y ago
        NATO was formed because of the Soviet Union. Russia is a different country.
        oneshtein 3y ago
        Russia pretends that it is the USSR in UN.
  - pests 3y ago
    Oh, just like America felt no risk when Russia tried to move into Cuba?
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      The Soviets were military expansionists, aggressively threatening and preparing for conflict with NATO. They were moving nuclear weapons into Cuba. NATO, as I pointed out, was trying to make Russia a trade partner even after they invaded Georgia and Ukraine, and to this day most countries can hardly fund their militaries (even though many individually have economies larger than Russia's and could fund larger militaries by themselves). NATO didn't conduct exercises, was very careful about putting forces near Russia's border - even on NATO territor, had no facilities in Ukraine (which has never been a member), and certainly didn't move nuclear weapons anywhere near Russia.
      - Intralexical 3y ago
        > They were moving nuclear weapons into Cuba. For the record, the US had put nukes in Turkey before the USSR put them in Cuba. The crisis was resolved by removing them from both, but only the withdrawal from Cuba was publicized. Of course, the other stuff you said was accurate. This isn't (…or wasn't) the Cold War, nor was Russia's oppression of Eastern Europe okay during the Cold War either.
        wolverine876 3y ago
        > For the record, the US had put nukes in Turkey Good point.
  - aurareturn 3y ago
    NATO expansion is the exact definition of what you just replied to.
    - Intralexical 3y ago
      NATO doesn't "expand". Free, independent, and sovereign countries join NATO because Russia keeps trying to kill them when they don't join NATO. Usually it takes quite a few years of hand-wringing from the NATO side to even agree to consider letting them in.
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        Don't you remember when NATO sent tanks into Hungary and Czechoslovakia, forcing them to remain in the alliance?
      - aurareturn 3y ago
        Still falls into the definition of the OP.
  - wait_a_minute 3y ago
    It is possible there are significant internal issues that became impossible to manage any longer unless fronting the need for a justified massive military offensive to distract the locals from something they were otherwise becoming preoccupied with. I do not foresee there being individuals who really hunger for acquisition of materials in that same way anymore as in the old days. These days, those energies are channeled almost entirely into acquiring as much valuable IP as possible and building the most bleeding edge platforms these days, which is usually good for the user/customer/consumer/investor/everyone. Fortunately, humanity's taste for that old type of aquisition has dwindled. I think the Internet and Democracy and the American Constitution have succeeded and some places that never wanted those things to succeed now need distractions at home so their populations don't start expecting the same types of possibilities or freedoms. People noticed what changed during the pandemic and after and suddenly everyone is demanding the same type of lives and opportunities and freedoms that the free people of the West have, especially in the United States... so some places became less stable than others and needed to drum up nationalistic fervor to feign justification for a war in order to try to stymy the changing tides at home. It's like when Boris Yeltsin visited a supermarket in the USA and couldn't believe what he was experiencing here versus what he expected to experience based on what he was primed to believe, versus what he experienced in his own home...that story alone when he went back contributed a lot to the eventual downfall of the USSR when people learned the truth. I think what's happening right now except at a much larger and unavoidable scale because of smartphones and social media and more easy access to the open international web where everyone can see how the world works.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > I do not foresee there being individuals who really hunger for acquisition of materials in that same way anymore as in the old days. Why not? Putin has clearly expressed a desire to restore Russian empire, and is doing it. > everyone is demanding the same type of lives and opportunities and freedoms that the free people of the West have, especially in the United States...so some places became less stable than others and needed to drum up nationalistic fervor That's happening all over the world: Russia, US, UK, India, Hungary, Poland, Italy, Israel, China, etc etc etc. It doesn't seem tied to a desire for US lifestyle. > the Internet and Democracy and the American Constitution have succeeded Have the latter two been under more threat in decades? And under threat arguably from the first one?
  - webreac 3y ago
    The war in Ukraine is about selling American shale gas. There are probably other reasons, like dividing Europe and Russia. The second Gulf War was motivated by Saddam Hussein's desire to sell his oil in euros to fight American imperialism. America is playing the marionnetist for all its benefits.
- therealdrag0 3y ago
  What about the crusades? Traveling from France to Israel to “take back the holy land” seems pretty religiously motivated.
  - temp112123 3y ago
    [dead]
- BurningFrog 3y ago
  Yeah, there is the noble reason you tell people - often including yourself - and there is the real reason that we don't talk or think about.
wolverine876 3y ago
Remind me why we are killing each other? Is it for survival? OT: We know everything we need to survive and prosper very well - imperfectly, but with margin of error to spare, including capable political systems. The people still killing are just criminals who want to steal and murder.
squarefoot 3y ago
Could be worth plotting a chart that shows how many of those who kill over some deity related reasons could also be part of those who design, build and operate remote vehicles on another planet, and the other way around.
- dylan604 3y ago
  i'm guessing if they were plotted using a Venn diagram, there wouldn't be much crossover.
  - jbboehr 3y ago
    Well, about that: > in the ranks of captured and confessed terrorists, engineers and engineering students are significantly overrepresented https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/magazine/12FOB-IdeaLab-t.html https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/magazine/12FOB-IdeaLab-t....
    - mturmon 3y ago
      That’s why we invented national labs, to keep those potential bad actors occupied with better goals.
Aaargh20318 3y ago
I dunno, some of these recent episodes of ‘the news’ feel a bit like lazy writing. Like this whole subplot where the humans kill each other fighting over the only part of the middle east that doesn’t have any oil. Who’d believe that would happen in real life?
- wolverine876 3y ago
  There's the old joke that the biblical Jews escaped slavery in Egypt and wandered 40 years in the desert, only to find the one place in the Mideast without oil.
wait_a_minute 3y ago
People find reasons to kill each other in large numbers even when God is not involved, so why that as your chosen foil to humanity's otherworldly helicopter? It is important to me that people move beyond blaming God for things like this. There are many more, and much more recent as well, examples where if people cared to seek what God thought the entire conflict would've been avoided. For example...where was the dispute about God, say, between the Chinese and the Japanese fronts during World War 2? Or between the Nazis and the Red Army? It wasn't a disagreement about God that resulted in dropping the atom bombs to end conflicts of that scale, unless you would agree with me that the only disagreement was that America kept believing in God and her adversaries no longer did...in which case I'd then just say that fundamentally it was disbelief in God that led to WW2's horrors, not disagreements over which God is correct. God is exonerated in all cases. This approach would be more respectful of the engineers who believe in God and who also contribute to projects like the space vehicles and probes or other impactful projects, and certainly more respectful of the great names in human history who are remembered for their contributions and noted also in the record for their love for God...
Intralexical 3y ago
Idk. If there were gods, which one is correct seems like it'd be a pretty important question. I wouldn't want to worship Beelzejuice Voorhees the Head-Chomper. Of course, killing people because they privately worship the Head-Chomper is probably too far, unless they're actively chomping (your?) heads. Also, Beelzejuice isn't real. But principles like human rights and freedom are worth fighting for, and necessary to sometimes fight for (or else we're all screwed)— Beliefs, certainly, if not anthropomorphized as "gods". Also, religions are a pretty strong indicator of social in-groups and out-groups. If you removed the gods from some religious wars, they'd probably still be fighting each other over skin color, language, ethnicity, culture, social ties, Adidas vs. Nike preference, external political goals, land use, water contamination, domestic political pressures, fishing rights, economic disenfranchisement, etc. Theology may help divide and rationalize it, but control over resources and power are pretty concrete motivations for creatures that have to worry about starving/dying, and gods are a proxy for that. Scarcity begets conflict. GDP per capita is ~$900 in Gaza, ~$350 in Afghanistan, ~$5,000 in Omsk. Doubt many would willingly sign up, or accept being conscripted, to murder unbelievers if they were more sure about having warm meals and meaningful works to cherish. Doubt NASA engineers would be "capable of flying a remote vehicle on a literally other planet" if they were busy scrounging for physical necessities. Even Bin Laden introduced his 2001 statement by referencing the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire and its effects on people. Kirill may talk of the "Antichrist", but what Putin wants is Sevastopol. I think it's reductive to just say "we also kill each other in large numbers over whose god is correct". We kill each other for a variety of reasons, usually fear of ourselves being killed, and sometimes we bring gods into it but it's very rarely, if ever, the sole reason.

Mountain_Skies 3y ago

We kill for lots of reasons, some as trivial as wanting the pocket change another person has on them.

c22 3y ago

No doubt someday we'll be killing people on other planets with remote vehicles.

OmarShehata 3y ago

"killing each other over whose god is correct" is a profound misunderstanding of humanity. That's not why humans kill each other now, or in any time in history. It is and always has been simple & rational game theory: fear of the other tribe killing you for your resources, or just simply because they're afraid you might kill them for _their_ resources. For example, this is (one of) the core reasons of why peace in Israel/Palestine is so hard (each side fears accepting sovereignty of the other side means they will continue to encroach and wipe them out). Humans are pretty clever and ingenious at all levels

wolverine876 3y ago
That's true sometimes, but sometimes people just want to take what their neighbors have. Russia's government faced no risk of Ukraine attacking, or NATO for that matter. They just wanted Ukraine.
- rpmisms 3y ago
  That's reductive. I'd compare it to the Cuban missile crisis. We were basically pointing a gun at their heads.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    It's just false. There was no way NATO or Ukraine was attacking Russia, in ten thousand years. NATO can barely be bothered to fund their militaries even now, and the US Republican party can't be bothered to fund Ukraine. Even after Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014 (and Georgia before that) the NATO countries were still making gas and other trade deals, thinking they would bring Russia into the fold of peaceful, free-trading nations. Trump tried to work with Putin; Obama did the big 'reset', etc., etc.
  - kibwen 3y ago
    "How dare these other countries respond to my aggression by forming a defensive pact to defend against my aggression! I'll aggress them for that!" Russia is the one pointing the gun is this scenario, but they sure do love to pretend otherwise.
    - rpmisms 3y ago
      NATO was formed because of the Soviet Union. Russia is a different country.
      - oneshtein 3y ago
        Russia pretends that it is the USSR in UN.
- pests 3y ago
  Oh, just like America felt no risk when Russia tried to move into Cuba?
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    The Soviets were military expansionists, aggressively threatening and preparing for conflict with NATO. They were moving nuclear weapons into Cuba. NATO, as I pointed out, was trying to make Russia a trade partner even after they invaded Georgia and Ukraine, and to this day most countries can hardly fund their militaries (even though many individually have economies larger than Russia's and could fund larger militaries by themselves). NATO didn't conduct exercises, was very careful about putting forces near Russia's border - even on NATO territor, had no facilities in Ukraine (which has never been a member), and certainly didn't move nuclear weapons anywhere near Russia.
    - Intralexical 3y ago
      > They were moving nuclear weapons into Cuba. For the record, the US had put nukes in Turkey before the USSR put them in Cuba. The crisis was resolved by removing them from both, but only the withdrawal from Cuba was publicized. Of course, the other stuff you said was accurate. This isn't (…or wasn't) the Cold War, nor was Russia's oppression of Eastern Europe okay during the Cold War either.
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        > For the record, the US had put nukes in Turkey Good point.
- aurareturn 3y ago
  NATO expansion is the exact definition of what you just replied to.
  - Intralexical 3y ago
    NATO doesn't "expand". Free, independent, and sovereign countries join NATO because Russia keeps trying to kill them when they don't join NATO. Usually it takes quite a few years of hand-wringing from the NATO side to even agree to consider letting them in.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      Don't you remember when NATO sent tanks into Hungary and Czechoslovakia, forcing them to remain in the alliance?
    - aurareturn 3y ago
      Still falls into the definition of the OP.
- wait_a_minute 3y ago
  It is possible there are significant internal issues that became impossible to manage any longer unless fronting the need for a justified massive military offensive to distract the locals from something they were otherwise becoming preoccupied with. I do not foresee there being individuals who really hunger for acquisition of materials in that same way anymore as in the old days. These days, those energies are channeled almost entirely into acquiring as much valuable IP as possible and building the most bleeding edge platforms these days, which is usually good for the user/customer/consumer/investor/everyone. Fortunately, humanity's taste for that old type of aquisition has dwindled. I think the Internet and Democracy and the American Constitution have succeeded and some places that never wanted those things to succeed now need distractions at home so their populations don't start expecting the same types of possibilities or freedoms. People noticed what changed during the pandemic and after and suddenly everyone is demanding the same type of lives and opportunities and freedoms that the free people of the West have, especially in the United States... so some places became less stable than others and needed to drum up nationalistic fervor to feign justification for a war in order to try to stymy the changing tides at home. It's like when Boris Yeltsin visited a supermarket in the USA and couldn't believe what he was experiencing here versus what he expected to experience based on what he was primed to believe, versus what he experienced in his own home...that story alone when he went back contributed a lot to the eventual downfall of the USSR when people learned the truth. I think what's happening right now except at a much larger and unavoidable scale because of smartphones and social media and more easy access to the open international web where everyone can see how the world works.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > I do not foresee there being individuals who really hunger for acquisition of materials in that same way anymore as in the old days. Why not? Putin has clearly expressed a desire to restore Russian empire, and is doing it. > everyone is demanding the same type of lives and opportunities and freedoms that the free people of the West have, especially in the United States...so some places became less stable than others and needed to drum up nationalistic fervor That's happening all over the world: Russia, US, UK, India, Hungary, Poland, Italy, Israel, China, etc etc etc. It doesn't seem tied to a desire for US lifestyle. > the Internet and Democracy and the American Constitution have succeeded Have the latter two been under more threat in decades? And under threat arguably from the first one?
- webreac 3y ago
  The war in Ukraine is about selling American shale gas. There are probably other reasons, like dividing Europe and Russia. The second Gulf War was motivated by Saddam Hussein's desire to sell his oil in euros to fight American imperialism. America is playing the marionnetist for all its benefits.
therealdrag0 3y ago
What about the crusades? Traveling from France to Israel to “take back the holy land” seems pretty religiously motivated.
- temp112123 3y ago
  [dead]
BurningFrog 3y ago
Yeah, there is the noble reason you tell people - often including yourself - and there is the real reason that we don't talk or think about.

wolverine876 3y ago

Remind me why we are killing each other? Is it for survival? OT: We know everything we need to survive and prosper very well - imperfectly, but with margin of error to spare, including capable political systems. The people still killing are just criminals who want to steal and murder.

squarefoot 3y ago

Could be worth plotting a chart that shows how many of those who kill over some deity related reasons could also be part of those who design, build and operate remote vehicles on another planet, and the other way around.

dylan604 3y ago
i'm guessing if they were plotted using a Venn diagram, there wouldn't be much crossover.
- jbboehr 3y ago
  Well, about that: > in the ranks of captured and confessed terrorists, engineers and engineering students are significantly overrepresented https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/magazine/12FOB-IdeaLab-t.html https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/magazine/12FOB-IdeaLab-t....
  - mturmon 3y ago
    That’s why we invented national labs, to keep those potential bad actors occupied with better goals.

Aaargh20318 3y ago

I dunno, some of these recent episodes of ‘the news’ feel a bit like lazy writing. Like this whole subplot where the humans kill each other fighting over the only part of the middle east that doesn’t have any oil. Who’d believe that would happen in real life?

wolverine876 3y ago
There's the old joke that the biblical Jews escaped slavery in Egypt and wandered 40 years in the desert, only to find the one place in the Mideast without oil.

wait_a_minute 3y ago

People find reasons to kill each other in large numbers even when God is not involved, so why that as your chosen foil to humanity's otherworldly helicopter? It is important to me that people move beyond blaming God for things like this. There are many more, and much more recent as well, examples where if people cared to seek what God thought the entire conflict would've been avoided. For example...where was the dispute about God, say, between the Chinese and the Japanese fronts during World War 2? Or between the Nazis and the Red Army? It wasn't a disagreement about God that resulted in dropping the atom bombs to end conflicts of that scale, unless you would agree with me that the only disagreement was that America kept believing in God and her adversaries no longer did...in which case I'd then just say that fundamentally it was disbelief in God that led to WW2's horrors, not disagreements over which God is correct. God is exonerated in all cases. This approach would be more respectful of the engineers who believe in God and who also contribute to projects like the space vehicles and probes or other impactful projects, and certainly more respectful of the great names in human history who are remembered for their contributions and noted also in the record for their love for God...

Intralexical 3y ago

Idk. If there were gods, which one is correct seems like it'd be a pretty important question. I wouldn't want to worship Beelzejuice Voorhees the Head-Chomper. Of course, killing people because they privately worship the Head-Chomper is probably too far, unless they're actively chomping (your?) heads. Also, Beelzejuice isn't real. But principles like human rights and freedom are worth fighting for, and necessary to sometimes fight for (or else we're all screwed)— Beliefs, certainly, if not anthropomorphized as "gods". Also, religions are a pretty strong indicator of social in-groups and out-groups. If you removed the gods from some religious wars, they'd probably still be fighting each other over skin color, language, ethnicity, culture, social ties, Adidas vs. Nike preference, external political goals, land use, water contamination, domestic political pressures, fishing rights, economic disenfranchisement, etc. Theology may help divide and rationalize it, but control over resources and power are pretty concrete motivations for creatures that have to worry about starving/dying, and gods are a proxy for that. Scarcity begets conflict. GDP per capita is ~$900 in Gaza, ~$350 in Afghanistan, ~$5,000 in Omsk. Doubt many would willingly sign up, or accept being conscripted, to murder unbelievers if they were more sure about having warm meals and meaningful works to cherish. Doubt NASA engineers would be "capable of flying a remote vehicle on a literally other planet" if they were busy scrounging for physical necessities. Even Bin Laden introduced his 2001 statement by referencing the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire and its effects on people. Kirill may talk of the "Antichrist", but what Putin wants is Sevastopol. I think it's reductive to just say "we also kill each other in large numbers over whose god is correct". We kill each other for a variety of reasons, usually fear of ourselves being killed, and sometimes we bring gods into it but it's very rarely, if ever, the sole reason.