We're pretty damn violent you know. Perennially (constantly?) we engage in genocide, war and revolution.
I'd like your opinion on whether this species will ever achieve a state of stability in which there are (gasp!) no big conflicts going on, anywhere. Given the large number of human beings in the world, I don't see that happening soon. But who knows, perhaps gradually reducing that number or increasing our technological sophistication will actually produce a state of universal peace (as in no bloodshed between large groups).
I've never understood the mindset that technological development or low numbers will equal peace. To me, those two will go hand-in-hand to creating more efficient and destructive war. Robots FTW.
At our current state of evolution, species-wide peace is only viable through mass enforcement, likely akin to a Global Order. We must be made to be peaceful. Freedom can go f*ck itself.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
When compared to tribal society, we partake in much less war and murder now than then, and this trend has been essentially consistent throughout history (though our technology has allowed us to wage larger wars, conflict is much less common and pervasive in people's lives).
If major steps were taken to end resource scarcity and dependance (Utopian, I know, I know) there would be very little to motivate large scale combat.
However, I was thinking about this the other day with a friend:
At the beginning of WW1, few of the major powers actually wanted conflict. Leaders of Britain, France and Russia really weren't interested in the time and investment war with Germany would take. However, the people, being removed from combat and wanting the glory for their respected Empire, were entirely in favor of it and were literally clamoring to go to war. This is largely because war, as it had been in the 1800s, was a "game" of honour and chivalry, removed from the general population and fought in regimented lines and with huge ceremony. War, as we know it today, was unheard of, the visceral consequences not apparent and largely unknown to everyone, including many of the top military commanders.
WW1, 2, and subsequent conflicts have done two things. The massive destruction of Western nations during the world wars brought the reality of the destructive nature of modern warfare directly into the psyche of people, and the increases in media and communication technology have given people a first hand look at what war is like. This isn't to say there isn't propaganda mixed in (say, the film "Saving Private Ryan" versus "Pearl Harbor"), but the face-to-face imagery we have with the moral and human consequences of war have changed the way we as a society feel about conflict. Sure, wars still happen, but not for these ideas of empirical honor that sort of died in WW1, as the reality of conflict makes such concepts immediately naive.
As major powers now develop drone and electronic warfare technology, these consequences are going to become less and less apparent to the populace. So long as major powers continue to fight wars against people who don't have the strength to really fight back in a meaningful way, people will become more comfortable with the idea of it, simply because the consequence is never made readily apparent to them. In fact, robotic warfare will be seemingly indistinguishable from video games in many ways, certainly videos of what look like houses being blown up by drones don't carry the same weight as a whole generation of young men being forced into the trenches or of a child covered in napalm.
And much like with the invention of artillery, citizens have no conception of how this new technology will change the battlefield if major powers face off against each other. We are potentially setting ourselves up for another WW1 scenario, where citizens demand a war that nobody might want, largely because they have no idea of how dramatic the consequences will be. Inevitable? maybe... I wouldn't speak in absolutes, however I think this scenario is the most likely.
We need another World War to set the example for the succeeding generation to not go to war. I love humans.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
I had an awesome teacher in high school, who went out of his way to show extremely graphic images of the allies liberating concentration camps and the like. he sort of believes people needed to see this to avoid it ever happening again, and that it was a crucial part of education.
He tried to show saving private Ryan in the class, but someone complained to the school board, and he was forced to show pearl harbor instead, as private Ryan was "too real".
I do think we live in a technologically advanced enough time that the horrors of war could be made clear without the need of another generation of young men dying, however, it seems the systems that should be showing us these things (media, education, etc) are too afraid to make people uncomfortable. about war. they (the school in this case) didn't think it appropriate that people learned war is terrible, gory, horrific and without all the pomp and honor of regular Hollywood films. /ffs
I watched Schindler's List unedited in Junior year at High School.
The American Civil War actually could be considered a very early dress rehearsal for World War I in terms of technology, tactics, and the sociological impact.
Early in the war you had high society families going on picnics to observe Union forces in battle and in the first Battle of Manassas (Bull Run) these people were forced to flee when the Union troops retreated and just about trampled them.
Also: (please log in to view the image)
Eerie considering that's from 50 years before the First World War, isn't it?
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
For sure, I'm not saying that story was the rule or anything, just something that made me think. It seems a really weak argument that something shouldn't be shown to a class because it does too good of a job of recreating an event.
Like, I question the relevance of a history class where you leave without some understanding of the horrors of war, especially at a highschool level where more academic and pedantic questions aren't as important as the more broad ideas.
Oh, for sure, or you have the battles in.... some southern swamp iirc (I'm not very knowledgeable on the civil war)... where you seem the same honor and bravado motivating generals to continuously try to take and retake strategically unimportant land thinking it will bring them glory and all that stuff that was associated with winning war back then. Similarly, French, British etc generals all had similar tactics and motivations during the early part of WW1, so I get what you are saying.
I've heard the Russia-Japan war described more as the "dress rehearsal" for WW1, if only because it was the first major use of modern artillery on a battlefield. given Germany was marginally involved in that conflict, it sort of explains why they had more suitable tactics and uniforms at the start of WW1. I totally see your point with the civil war as well... In terms of military technology, the mid 1800s to early 1900s saw such a redesign of the battlefield.
No, that will eventually happen. The generation that fights the next major war will produce a succeeding generation opposed to it. Similar to the "greatest generation" producing the privileged Gen Xers who generally opposed warfare--the anti-Vietnam generation. Or the post-WWI generation dismaying at having to fight what their parents failed to finish.
But since WWII, every succeeding generation has grown a little more complacent in their relative peace and their society's dominance--none are really used to brutal, large-scale war. They've only known small-scale conflicts like the Falklands, Afghanistan, Iraq etc.--typically defined by relatively low casualties, overwhelming military victory, and poorly managed occupation. Telecommunication advancements have given the populace a glimpse and a sense in to conflict--but only a glimpse. And even then, it's a glimpse in to small wars, wars that they won and kicked ass in. Where a decade of occupation (not war) produced less casualties than in single battles during WWI or WWII. We decry it, yes, but we're assured of our supremacy over the second and third world. It gives us confidence (and arrogance) where we feel comfortable saying "War is bad---but we'd win regardless." That confidence would go up in smoke were we start fighting fellow World Powers--like the Germans and Japanese in the WWs.
And when that eventually happens, it will produce such a body count that the succeeding generation will grow up in a world still marred by that war, and they will hate it. But two generations after them, in a (presumably) recovered world, the complacency and comparative ignorance will return. Reset cycle.
When will they ever learn
When will they eeever learn?
Answer: never. Humans FTW.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
Well the Germans took over shaping the Japanese army after the Franco-Prussian War when Japan realized that France (their previous patron) wasn't the top dog in terms of land warfare. So you could see it as Germany actually using Japan as a guinea pig for its tactics and equipment.
One of the reasons why Last Samurai, though an entertaining and at times moving film, is mad inaccurate. Why the hell would Japan go to the US for military assistance when their last showing at that point in history was getting trounced by the Sioux at Little Big Horn?
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
I read an alternate history book called 1901 where Germany invades New England in 1901 in order to try to strong arm America into ceding their recent acquisitions from the Spanish-American War.
At first America gets steamrolled but after recalling their troops from Cuba and the Philippines and gaining the covert aid of the British Empire and reorganizing their troops they push the Germans back and the Kaiser gets taken out in a coup when his generals realize he's crazy when he decides to change plans and try to make New England a German colony.
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
The book ends with a German industrialist scheming with an aristocrat to create a "Third Reich" and start by annexing Denmark and the Netherlands because he sees the creation of an overseas empire as silly when they could dominate Europe.
Dunn dunnn duhhhh!!!
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
As long as imperfect man controls the world, there will always be some sort of conflict, that will turn to some sort of violence. Might not be "war" in the traditional sense, but there will always be someone who will want what someone else has, and fight to take it, or what have you.
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
KMC Community Forums
Jan 12th, 2012 11:34 AM
