The Age of Violence: Pre-history-21XX?

[IDMclean]

I have been thinking on a number of things and one of which is the notion of violence. Both on the small scale and on the large scale. Domestic and War.

 

It occures to me that as we progress we might one day look back on these ages as the Age of Violence, or the Age of War.

 

We accept these things readily, but for what reason? War has few benefits, this has been shown time and time again. It is economically draining, morally demeaning, absolutely terrible for foreign policy and Alienates the one who loses, creating nothing but resentment.

 

The only real benefit I can think of is that it serves as a population booster. Contrary to popular opinion (that includes laymen and the ignorant (in the sense of unknowning or indifferent) masses, War actually increases population. The baby boomers are a decent set of evidence for this, and there are studies of the whole thing.

 

It is often cited that War brings about peace, but this is emperically unstable premise, given that in our history we have wared thousands, perhaps millions of times (as a global species.), if war caused peace then we should have plenty of it now. I don't see that as the case, I see a cycle of war.

 

Infact, it seems to me that we can use history to emperically show that war does not solve problems. War has never had any kind of lasting (era long) contribution beyond making for an interesting entry in some history text somewhere. Often enough war causes more problems than it sets out to solve, and when problems are solved it is not war that is the cause.

 

Take for instance World War II. The world has, on a whole, come out for the better, but it was not the violence of world war II which brought about these good changes. It was what happened during and after, not on the battle field, but off of it. Where solidarity was the factor which united us, and negotation solved the issues which had started the War in the first place.

 

Nowhere in this is violence the direct contributor to the solution.

 

I find violence personally rehensible. It is my personal history with it that has eventually brought me to where I am now, and great teachers who have taught me the practicallity of (non-violent) conflict and the immorality of violence.

 

I look forward to contribution. Whatever it may be.

[UncleAl]

Europe produced huge numbers of young men at near zero economic cost for whom there was no place. The solution was to kill them: 700+ years of mass slaughter only paused for the Black Plague (two generations to refill the problem). WWI was male slaughter on an unimaginable scale. One generation later male slaughter returned.

 

Devout Muslims and Jews have insane reproductive rates (as do Mexicans). Huge numbers of young men for whom there is no place accrue at near zero economic cost. Our idiot President is Officially amazed that young males with god up their butts strap on suicide vests. Thousands of our own young men identically die and vastly greater numbers are permanently crippled. This is Christian patriotism.

 

Population exceeding resources precipitates slaughter. That is history. The Middle East is desert harboring 300 million people averaging 6 kids/family. Peace? NEVER. If you want Middle East peace then you want to kill 100 million young males. Any 100 million dead will do. Diplomacy is irrelevant and useless. Choose a modality - and don't finance it out of my wallet. Pay for it yourself. To criticize is to volunteer.

 

Israel cannot counter large numbers and low costs of Muslim warrior production. Bottom line is either Jewish death camps, again, or a broad nuclear response. Killing one city of 50,000 is the same headline as killing tens of millions with coordinated airbursts. Greater Cairo all by itself is 25 million bodies, hypocenter 30.03333N, 31.2166E.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masada

They'll do it again while both Yahweh and Allah laugh.

[DarkColoredLight]

I think of it as more of the age of confusion. Which can lead to violence and war. But, can also lead to good or even great things

 

This has been driven by what is socially acceptable in one's society, and the degree in which ideas, common to all, are accepted. Also, how simple ideas can be put together to make a new more complex idea, so on a so forth.

 

Pretty much each person lives under the same rules, whether they know the rules or not is up to them. How these rules are bent, broken, or voided causes conflict within the system, or country, and ultimately between two or more systems, or countries.

 

Most people don't plan on harming or killing other people, but if the time comes they have no problems doing the harming and or killing(s). This could be related to ones fear of their own death. If they are not afraid to die, then they in theory won't be afraid of death, even if that means murder. Do unto them, before they can do unto you. Sadly this usually only pertains to destruction, rarly do you suspect someone of wanting to do a good deed for you. Even more rarly will you just jump up and do them a good deed before they can do one for you.

 

With all this confusion there leaves little room for hope, but I like to hope theres still at least some room for hope. :D

 

Something to that effect,

DCL

[infamous]

 

Israel cannot counter large numbers and low costs of Muslim warrior production. Bottom line is either Jewish death camps, again, or a broad nuclear response.

 

 

They'll do it again while both Yahweh and Allah laugh.

Regretably, I fear that one of these two alternatives will shape our future.............Infy