6 ms·

Conflict creation for profit is something inherent to humans, not the West alone. We are predators, we eat bunnies, and because bunnies don't kill us in return,

Conflict creation for profit is something inherent to humans, not the West alone. We are predators, we eat bunnies, and because bunnies don't kill us in return, we think that it is ok. For example, Spanish conquered South and Central America, but the people that lived there were not conflict free. In fact, if you compare Spanish with Mayans that will extract the heart out of their alive enemies, or their skin, Spanish were saints in comparison. Spanish used the help of subordinates Indians to remove the people in power. Let's not talk about China's History: it is probably as violent or more violent than the West's. For certain intrigues were way more sophisticated as central planning was way bigger. We can mention Shaka Zulu, or Muslims in Africa. The main difference was technology advancing so fast as to make non west people bunnies in comparison. Arrows against repetition rifles, or tanks and planes against horses.

meric 12y ago
China had only a few types of enemies prior to fighting Europeans - its historical rivals were never fully united and organised states. And it's not like China didn't embrace technology. They in fact did, and used guns and rifles to great effect against tribes in the northwest prior to European "harassment". The only technology they didn't foresee was the steamship, but there was no way to foresee that in the 1750's. It was in fact European organisation that made its military so superior to China's. With good leadership and training, Chinese weapons is sufficient to defeat European forces, sans steamship, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Taku_Forts_(1859) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Taku_Forts_(1859). It was corruption and ineffective leadership and organisation that meant even when China had resource and technological edge, it would lose devastatingly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Yalu_River_(1894) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Yalu_River_(1894) "The lack of training was a direct result of a serious lack of ammunition. Corruption seems also to have played a major role; many Chinese shells appear to have been filled with cement or porcelain, or were the wrong caliber and could not be fired. Philo McGiffin noted that many of the gunpowder charges were "thirteen years old and condemned."[2] What little ammunition was available was to be preserved for a real battle. Live ammunition training was rarely carried out." And of course, corruption and ineffective organisation are qualities that states will gain over time - the longer a state is in power the more corrupt it will become, until one day it collapses. Chinese technology is perfectly capable of defeating Europeans with superior technology in battle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Liaoluo_Bay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Liaoluo_Bay The key as always is organisation and leadership. Technology means naught without it.
- socceroos 12y ago
  Does this apply to highly intelligent horde AI that you order to annihilate an opposition with the wave of your hand? I know this isn't based in current reality, but mark my words when I say that the country that produces the smartest and most effective AI weapons at a sufficient scale will be king. We're already seeing the first retirements of humans in exchange for AI weapons.
thevardanian 12y ago
I'm not talking about violence at all. The goal of a state is in fact to have a monopoly on violence. I'm not taking sides at all, just pointing out the history of the past couple hundred years. China is like any other state, in fact it was literally the first instance of the Modern State that had centralized authoritative systems of governance that provided various facilities throughout the Empire, mandated by the emperor. Heck we have one of the first instance of the fiat currency being used in China, which in itself shows the internal stability of the Chinese state. Not to mention their vastly superior ability to mitigate famine throughout the country. Europe during all this lacked tremendously. For instance during the 18th century enlightenment era millions of people died due to famine, and other hunger related diseases in Europe, whereas in China during the same time period we see the Qing successfully provide millions of peasants with precious grains, and intelligently rationing them out through centralized sources. This was the norm in China. Compared that to the blunders of the later Qing, and infamous Mao. It's astounding how far China has come. China being more violent than the West is bullshit. Both where at least equally violent. All states are violent. They require violence, and coercion. Well actually we can't really forgive the British literally starving the Indian population, by deliberately instating rules that caused millions of people to starve to death, while exporting record amounts of grains to Britain. Oh yes. The West wasn't that violent, or cruel... The myth is that the West had technological superiority compared to other nations, and built their empire from that technology, but that really doesn't cut it. What the West was able to do is exploit that technology to create a new economic system, you know, globalization. Many nations had similar technologies, except the West's ability to politically maneuver regions in their own favor, and thereby exploiting that region to export trade goods back home is what actually made them incredibly successful. This export starved other nations, countries, and kingdoms, both literally, and metaphorically of various other prosperities. This exporting of goods is what drove the British, and the Imperial powers in general, and what produced a wealthy economy in those countries. Eventually draining away so much wealth from those regions that we see the effects to this day. I'm not saying that West was either more, or less violent than any other nation in history, just pointing out what happened in the recent past, and what continues to happen even today. Furthermore it's an assumption to think that conflict creation is inherent in human beings, because it's really not, and there are many instances of various government being satisfied in their own domains. China, and India being an example where incredible wealth meant a stable state, and that stability was satisfying to those population that actively pursuing conflict for even more wealth would be seen as idiotic. They knew they had more than enough. The West knew they were beggars, and so they conquered. The continued exploitation through conflict is not a preferred method of existence, as we are seeing with the USA.

meric 12y ago

China had only a few types of enemies prior to fighting Europeans - its historical rivals were never fully united and organised states. And it's not like China didn't embrace technology. They in fact did, and used guns and rifles to great effect against tribes in the northwest prior to European "harassment". The only technology they didn't foresee was the steamship, but there was no way to foresee that in the 1750's. It was in fact European organisation that made its military so superior to China's. With good leadership and training, Chinese weapons is sufficient to defeat European forces, sans steamship, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Taku_Forts_(1859) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Taku_Forts_(1859). It was corruption and ineffective leadership and organisation that meant even when China had resource and technological edge, it would lose devastatingly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Yalu_River_(1894) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Yalu_River_(1894) "The lack of training was a direct result of a serious lack of ammunition. Corruption seems also to have played a major role; many Chinese shells appear to have been filled with cement or porcelain, or were the wrong caliber and could not be fired. Philo McGiffin noted that many of the gunpowder charges were "thirteen years old and condemned."[2] What little ammunition was available was to be preserved for a real battle. Live ammunition training was rarely carried out." And of course, corruption and ineffective organisation are qualities that states will gain over time - the longer a state is in power the more corrupt it will become, until one day it collapses. Chinese technology is perfectly capable of defeating Europeans with superior technology in battle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Liaoluo_Bay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Liaoluo_Bay The key as always is organisation and leadership. Technology means naught without it.

socceroos 12y ago
Does this apply to highly intelligent horde AI that you order to annihilate an opposition with the wave of your hand? I know this isn't based in current reality, but mark my words when I say that the country that produces the smartest and most effective AI weapons at a sufficient scale will be king. We're already seeing the first retirements of humans in exchange for AI weapons.

thevardanian 12y ago

I'm not talking about violence at all. The goal of a state is in fact to have a monopoly on violence. I'm not taking sides at all, just pointing out the history of the past couple hundred years. China is like any other state, in fact it was literally the first instance of the Modern State that had centralized authoritative systems of governance that provided various facilities throughout the Empire, mandated by the emperor. Heck we have one of the first instance of the fiat currency being used in China, which in itself shows the internal stability of the Chinese state. Not to mention their vastly superior ability to mitigate famine throughout the country. Europe during all this lacked tremendously. For instance during the 18th century enlightenment era millions of people died due to famine, and other hunger related diseases in Europe, whereas in China during the same time period we see the Qing successfully provide millions of peasants with precious grains, and intelligently rationing them out through centralized sources. This was the norm in China. Compared that to the blunders of the later Qing, and infamous Mao. It's astounding how far China has come. China being more violent than the West is bullshit. Both where at least equally violent. All states are violent. They require violence, and coercion. Well actually we can't really forgive the British literally starving the Indian population, by deliberately instating rules that caused millions of people to starve to death, while exporting record amounts of grains to Britain. Oh yes. The West wasn't that violent, or cruel... The myth is that the West had technological superiority compared to other nations, and built their empire from that technology, but that really doesn't cut it. What the West was able to do is exploit that technology to create a new economic system, you know, globalization. Many nations had similar technologies, except the West's ability to politically maneuver regions in their own favor, and thereby exploiting that region to export trade goods back home is what actually made them incredibly successful. This export starved other nations, countries, and kingdoms, both literally, and metaphorically of various other prosperities. This exporting of goods is what drove the British, and the Imperial powers in general, and what produced a wealthy economy in those countries. Eventually draining away so much wealth from those regions that we see the effects to this day. I'm not saying that West was either more, or less violent than any other nation in history, just pointing out what happened in the recent past, and what continues to happen even today. Furthermore it's an assumption to think that conflict creation is inherent in human beings, because it's really not, and there are many instances of various government being satisfied in their own domains. China, and India being an example where incredible wealth meant a stable state, and that stability was satisfying to those population that actively pursuing conflict for even more wealth would be seen as idiotic. They knew they had more than enough. The West knew they were beggars, and so they conquered. The continued exploitation through conflict is not a preferred method of existence, as we are seeing with the USA.