For example, it looks like China is on a possible collision course with India and Southeast Asian nations over water rights. China's north is heavily populated, rapidly growing, and severely short of water. Tibet on the other hand is very rich in water resources that are upstream of major rivers in India, Laos, Vietnam, etc. As we speak there are gigantic projects diverting water from China's south to the north. It's likely not to be enough, and if China moves on to divert and dam rivers that cross international borders, there will likely be war.
This is just one example, but my guess would be that a resource-driven conflict that incites national pride on both sides will break those friendships rather than the other way around. If the fundamental reasons driving a conflict are not resolved, it's hard to see why friendships will be able to prevent war.
It is also to be noted that among the few Chinese people I have met, most seem to have a liking towards Indians and vice-versa. Also, you would not believe the extent to which Indians and Pakistanis would go to demonstrate their love for each other. A few years ago (2005, I think), when there was a bilateral cricket tournament between Pakistan and India in India (and the next year in Pakistan), Indians would literally drag Pakistanis to their homes as guests. This was repeated by the Pakistanis the next year.
Looking at the news reports and the way the Indian and Pakistani governments accuse each other, you would never guess such stuff could happen.
This only works when private citizens are allowed to influence government: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory That's why 2 democracies have never gone to war.
No, the assumption here is that facilitating communication will help resolve a conflict. A commendable initiative by Facebook.
Since I've quit using Facebook, etc I have noticed a massive improvement in the quality of my interactions with friends. They actually bother asking how I'm doing / what I'm up to, and I'm genuinely curious about their recent experiences.
I'm actually convinced that this global obsession with social networks could lead to more wars than peace -- the current generation of Internet trolls seem like a mere precursor of what's to come. People really take this virtual shit seriously -- doesn't that seem just the slightest bit scary, when coupled with natural youthful aggression?
The problem is that Facebook is a constant communication. When you interact with people after talking to them on Facebook, there's less to talk about, because it's already been said. If you consider Facebook to be a part of interaction, as I do, the net conversation swells; if not, it shrinks.
> I'm actually convinced that this global obsession with social networks could lead to more wars than peace -- the current generation of Internet trolls seem like a mere precursor of what's to come. People really take this virtual shit seriously -- doesn't that seem just the slightest bit scary, when coupled with natural youthful aggression?
Yes and no. The good thing about the Internet is that to take it seriously, you have to make the choice yourself. It's not like a war, in which nationalism can sweep a lot of good people into doing bad things. Rather, it's a bunch of smaller, decentralized, isolated incidents, and I like that. The more isolationist (not isolated) the world is, the healthier it is. If a thousand nutjobs kill a thousand people over Internet bullshit, that's a lot healthier than that thousand nutjobs congregating over political/religious/economic bullshit and attempting to kill a lot more. There'll be more incidents, in other words, but each one will be vastly less harmful.
2.) Cool company initiative that I can respect? Check.
I think Zuckerberg might finally be growing into his own. :)
Maybe facebook is planning world peace through extended computer use.
Additionally, the idea of a weekly (worse, daily) lecture as an effective means of information transfer for everyone in attendance is pretty silly.
Lastly, my college classes _expected_ that people would tune out a bit, especially as freshmen, since we didn't have the mental strength to last through a 3 hour discussion of a text. 'Attendance' was a fairly fluid concept. It worked well.
Makes me glad I'm in engineering where people need to focus, it doesn't help that this freshman level class enforces attendance either cause these people probably wouldn't even be showing up.
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy..." Herman Goering
The question is, does prolonged communication lead to more peace or more hate? My bet: In the short term, more hate, because there'll be a lot of people getting in fights over issues they didn't know existed. (I lost a lot of Palin-supporting friends last year.) In the long run, however, more open communication leads to us understanding each other better, and only good can come of that.
Advertising doesn't just change every hundred years, but if you don't think Facebook is one of the two Great Advertisers of the decade, along with Google, then you weren't paying attention.
Also it's worth pointing out that the graphs are immaterial; the people with real animosity wont be making those connections - and Facebook don't seem to be doing anything to encourage them......
For example the local max on Sep 19, or the local min at Aug 21 seem to hold for most pairs of countries.
Great listen if you have an hour commute: http://blogs.wnyc.org/radiolab/2009/10/19/new-normal/
edit: Here's my take. "War is a failure of the imagination." Once you understand that quote, you've just 'gotten' about half of history.
