undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbithive1231y ago0 comments

By inductive reasoning that's an understandable opinion; human beings have had wars somewhere every day for thousands of years. Is the conclusion that therefore violence is inevitable prescriptive as well? Where do we draw the line between accepting necessary violence (someone attacks you) and perpetuating the cycle (arms races)? Do the laws of physics somehow require humans to engage in violent conflicts?

It seems evident to me that the root of these problems is in our thinking; when we engage in everyday behaviors and experience unexpected results, we easily recognize the error and take corrective action. For instance, if you take a wrong turn while driving. But when the same thing happens with violent conflicts, we seem to shrug our shoulders and say "nothing to learn here, it's just the human condition".

Maybe the best we can do is individually not contribute to the various forms of violence. This requires a level of responsibility that is abdicated when we start with the conclusion that violence is mandatory. It's not very scientific to start with a conclusion.

0 comments

anon2911y ago

> It seems evident to me that the root of these problems is in our thinking; when we engage in everyday behaviors and experience unexpected results, we easily recognize the error and take corrective action. For instance, if you take a wrong turn while driving. But when the same thing happens with violent conflicts, we seem to shrug our shoulders and say "nothing to learn here, it's just the human condition".

I'm having trouble understanding here. Is your contention that the alternative to being a pacifist means giving up?

To the contrary, the proliferation of nuclear weapons has resulted in a world safer than it's ever been

bithive123OP1y ago

We may not have a lot to discuss if your idea of safety is everyone having loaded guns pointed at each other. To me that is an extremely precarious position especially if we have accepted as wisdom that violence, maybe even preemptive violence, might be necessary. Is indefinite cold war really our highest aspiration?

I'm trying to suggest that human beings engage in all sorts of destructive behaviors, including warfare, because of the way we think about the world. We compartmentalize violence, pollution, etc, advocate for the security of our nation-state at the expense of others, and ignore the "externalities", i.e. the simple fact that everything is connected. This tendency perpetuates the very cycles of conflict that most people feel like we could do without.

And yet somehow it's easier to see that you've gone too far east and to go west instead, or vice versa. But for non-trivial matters it seems people want a fixed action pattern to which to cling ("never use force" or "be ready to shoot first") and get confused by comments such as mine which aren't advocating any fixed strategy because the fixed strategies are what got us in this mess.

anon2911y ago

> Is indefinite cold war really our highest aspiration?

It's literally brought about the longest period of peace between major world powers, in basically the entire history of civilization.

> I'm trying to suggest that human beings engage in all sorts of destructive behaviors, including warfare, because of the way we think about the world. We compartmentalize violence, pollution, etc, advocate for the security of our nation-state at the expense of others, and ignore the "externalities", i.e. the simple fact that everything is connected. This tendency perpetuates the very cycles of conflict that most people feel like we could do without.

At the end of the day human conflict is rooted in simple physics and biology. We compete for a limited set of resources. Even if everyone had every resource they wanted, they'd still compete for sexual partners. You're not going to fix biology or physics. If you have an issue with this, I'd suggest filing a complaint with God.

Literally no movement to ignore these very real constraints has ever been met with success. Some have shown promise on very small scales, but these usually end up petering out due to lack of new converts, or descend into madness upon scale. Can you point to anything that substantiates your point?

> And yet somehow it's easier to see that you've gone too far east and to go west instead, or vice versa. But for non-trivial matters it seems people want a fixed action pattern to which to cling ("never use force" or "be ready to shoot first") and get confused by comments such as mine which aren't advocating any fixed strategy because the fixed strategies are what got us in this mess.

What is your comment? No one can choose on behalf of others. You can only choose on behalf of yourself. Hence the issue.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsbithive1231y ago0 comments

0 comments

anon2911y ago

I'm having trouble understanding here. Is your contention that the alternative to being a pacifist means giving up?

To the contrary, the proliferation of nuclear weapons has resulted in a world safer than it's ever been

bithive123OP1y ago

anon2911y ago

> Is indefinite cold war really our highest aspiration?

It's literally brought about the longest period of peace between major world powers, in basically the entire history of civilization.

What is your comment? No one can choose on behalf of others. You can only choose on behalf of yourself. Hence the issue.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse