Debate Everything

[Cherry Lover]

Yeah Umbra, whatever dude. Humans should always reach further, the word impossible is an excuse when it comes to philosophy and technology.

No, it's not impossible, just exceptionally difficult, to the point that it might as well be called such. Maybe there will come a time when humans legitimately do not fight each other any more, but it's going to require a significant change in human society for it to happen, and even then I would imagine people would still get into fights and the like sometimes.

For there to be no war, we need a situation where there is no need to fight over resources and where no-one ever has a desire to hurt, control or impose their beliefs on anyone else, at all (even their own children), so there is legitimately no need to fight. Currently, we have neither and, whilst I can see the first happening, the second is going to take a long time.

[Umbra of Chaos]

Next you'll say we'll dismantle all the nuclear weapons and the sky will be filled with double rainbows.

[Cherry Lover]

Next you'll say we'll dismantle all the nuclear weapons and the sky will be filled with double rainbows.

I think the first is considerably more likely than outright world peace (although still not particularly likely...).

And, my point was that permanent, true World Peace requires there to be no reason for people to even want to fight, and that requires both a post-scarcity society and a society in which no-one tries to control or harm others, and the second of those seems unlikely to ever arise. The best we're likely to ever get is a society with no large-scale conflicts (i.e. wars), and even that is exceptionally difficult to achieve.

[Umbra of Chaos]

We would only dismantle nukes if we were absolutely sure the other side doesn't have any. We cannot make sure that it will happen, so every nation will keep them hidden somewhere else. It would only happen if other countries trusted each other completely, and you and I both know that this is ridiculously unlikely.

[Cherry Lover]

Well, yeah, it's unlikely to happen in anything remotely like the current world. I wouldn't say it will never happen, though. If nothing else, there will probably come a time when nukes are just obsolete.

[lantzblades]

The inability to do anything but see the negative possibilities makes further debate pointless. Believe what you want Umbra, I prefer to believe in the intelligence and good nature of people rather than believing people are selfish, evil or violent.

[Arch-Magos Winter]

The inability to do anything but see the negative possibilities makes further debate pointless. Believe what you want Umbra, I prefer to believe in the intelligence and good nature of people rather than believing people are selfish, evil or violent.

I like to believe it too until some asshole tries to brain me with a bottle of gin he's stealing because he fucking can.

People are selfish, greedy, and violent. It's in our nature to want more, want to keep things, and to hurt those that want to take away our things. It's called survival. Pacifism only works when there isn't a guy with a big stick around the corner about to kick the shit out of you.

Humanity will never escape violence, simply because violence is in our nature.

[Alice]

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.

I think this about sums it up, really.

Reducing or even eliminating war is possible, if quite difficult (far more the latter than the former). Eliminating conflict altogether? Not only is that pretty much impossible, but it'd also be detrimental. Some things simply must be fought for, whether by words or via fists. If we don't fight to make things better, then they will never change.

[Kat]

Yeah Umbra, whatever dude. Humans should always reach further, the word impossible is an excuse when it comes to philosophy and technology.

Get down to Earth. There are things that are certain, like that the heat death of universe is foregone conclusion.

[Cherry Lover]

The inability to do anything but see the negative possibilities makes further debate pointless. Believe what you want Umbra, I prefer to believe in the intelligence and good nature of people rather than believing people are selfish, evil or violent.

The problem is, Lantz, that it only takes one person to be selfish, evil or violent for there to be a potential for conflict. Sure, it's reasonable to assume that most people are intelligent and good-natured, but to assume that all people are intelligent and good-natured is a huge stretch, and one that is quite obviously not true just based on our own experiences (I would sure as hell not call CV "good-natured", for example).

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.

I think this about sums it up, really.

Reducing or even eliminating war is possible, if quite difficult (far more the latter than the former). Eliminating conflict altogether? Not only is that pretty much impossible, but it'd also be detrimental. Some things simply must be fought for, whether by words or via fists. If we don't fight to make things better, then they will never change.

Pretty much impossible? Yeah. Detrimental? It depends how you do it.

If you eliminate conflict by eliminating the means to fight without removing the will to do so then, yeah, that would be bad, but if you can find a way to eliminate all the reasons why people want to fight then that's very definitely a good thing. Extremely implausible, sure, but definitely good.

[Kat]

Most people are selfish. People who are extremely altruistic are often also not right in the head (fictional example - Emiya). Being selfish and prioritising yourself and closest people over every single stranger is actually beneficial from the evolutionary standpoint if not done in extreme way.

[Cherry Lover]

Most people are selfish. People who are extremely altruistic are often also not right in the head (fictional example - Emiya).

Most people are selfish to an extent, but not as far as you and Arch seem to think.

Being selfish and prioritising yourself and closest people over every single stranger is actually beneficial from the evolutionary standpoint if not done in extreme way.

Not entirely. It is in principle advantageous on an individual level, but not necessarily in terms of the survival of your genes (although favouring those closest to you generally is). Hell, that basic principle is probably why we have evolved a concept of punishing people who do "bad" things, because doing so makes behaviour that is harmful to the species as a whole less beneficial to individuals.

[Kat]

I said in extreme way.

People still hire their relatives, prefer to spend money on their children over anonymous Ethiopian orphans unless they are filthy rich and want to boast and pay more attention to their families.

It must be so deeply ingrained that socialists here want to abolish state alimony fund so tax payers won't pay on strangers' children just because their mother or father evades paying money.

[lantzblades]

Anyone who says but after the statement I would like to believe is lying. One can believe in and work toward a goal without disassociating reality.

the effective reply here is movie quotes and lies. At least, I suppose, I understand the boundless rage I get attacked with. It certainly makes more sense now considering your answers here.

[Kat]

Who the heck quote movies here? As for me, I bring up legitimate arguments from the field of bology and psychology. Our brains are hardwired to help relatives first over strangers because we spend overwhelming majority of our history as species in close knit nomadic packs that competed over resources. Homo Sapiens Sapiens as species is 200000 years old, and our hominid ancestors exhibited similar behavior for millions of years. It takes another millions of years of changing the nature of species.