GameBanshee Forums

@Denethorn: Can you give some examples of humanitarian gain due to war? Personally I can come up with Nuclear Power, Sophisticated aircraft design and a few others. Is this enough you think?

Looking back at your post specifically, what has Lord Nelson contributed that benefit us today?

And why is the progress made through peaceful endeavours like art, medical science, literature, philosophy etc not good enough?

My first reply was somewhat lighthearted. But there we go.

Anyway... consider the mode of communication we are using presently: the internet Arguably the greatest invention of recent times, and it was spawned and developed largely out of thirst for supremacy during the Cold War.

You can read [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet#Creation_of_the_Internet"]here[/url] about the limited role military played in the creation of Internet. Hardly a reason good enough for millions of people to die imo.

You have not responded to my other question about why peaceful development does not count? What makes it worse, when it have achieved so much more, and have caused comparatively insignificant damage?

Ironically that was the same article I looked at to verify my thoughts. Frankly I am somewhat inebriated and exceptionally tired so I will reply fully tommorow.

Medical science most definately owes much to human conflict, largely because it is the primary cause. Plastic surgery? The kerosene jet fuel used in the Second World War caused burns to pilots unlike anything seen before, Archibald McIndoe developed facial recontructive surgery amongst others.

Some of the greatest pieces of artwork in any form and shape have been about war... regretfully. Equally so with literature. Unfortunately philosophy largely deals with the baseness of our own existence with regards to justification of it.

They are exceptionally limited and basic responses, true.

I'm sorry if I'm not making myself clear enough.

Military funding have resulted in some inventions/knowledge that is good for humans, I agree with that.

The problem is that more knowledge and inventions come from non military background, penicillin being a good example. In addition to being more productive peaceful means also have the advantage of not killing people, so then why would "progress due to war" be better or preferable?

Yay, debate! Nobody loves a good one more than I, and nobody is a bigger proponent of spam as a whole outside of maybe Rav, but I'd appreciate if you guys could mainly refrain from questioning each others' individual selections. Spam is still always cool in my threads, and I don't really even mind the debate about whether or not war contributes to progress (though it may be easier to continue it elsewhere), but I don't want people to be discouraged from posting their thoughts out of fear their selections will be systematically picked apart. Thanks.

As for my own choices, I'll refrain from going on about Jesus but I feel I have to at least mention him considering my religion does seem to be based around him. No snickers for once, if you wouldn't mind.

St. Francis of Assisi and Mother Theresa probably top this list for the generous, gentle, caring natures they are so well known for. I wish I had the faith, self-control and genuine exquisiteness of character they had.

Aristophanes and Michel de Montaigne: the former for his ingenious, poignant humor that I choke on even today and the latter for his courage, intelligence, good humor, curiosity and the will to express it all in words.

Plato, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes: I don't really know what to say, other than I've always liked and respected their works best of all the philosophers. Schopenhauer bears mentioning as well because of the profound hatred of egoism (and Hegel) that I admire and agree with.

I need to mention at least one great leader/politician while I'm at this and a number come to mind like Queen Elizabeth, George Washington, Cicero (not a leader, I know, but quite possibly my favorite politician), Marcus Aurelius... But I have to go with Augustus/Octavian Caesar because I think he truly must be the most influential leader in world history: he's responsible for creating the entire infrastructure of the world's greatest empire, creating stability from the horror of years of civil war. The greatest leader the world has ever known IMO.

I also have to admit an admiration for Mary Wollstonecraft (sp?) who's influence on the rights women now are entitled to is inestimable.


Heh, sorry that was so long.

Dottie wrote:That was a highly unsympathetic opinion. What does this killing achieve, in your opinion? Personally I can't figure out anything more detestable than killing non agressive people for your/your nations gain.

My nation? You make a horrendous assumption based on my comment. I said "the world", not my nation. The world, as in including all species. You see, it disgusts me that "people" base their opinions on the fact humans seem to be superior than other species and call it "unbiased". It IS biased, horribly so. Every time one human kills another human, I smile. Why? Humans breed like rats, and are doing their utmost to live longer, and through things that will leave most other species extinct.

Why is this a problem? The birth->death ratio is horribly out of whack with humans. In nature, there are generally safe guards to prevent over-population among other species. In humans? What is there? Disease, virii, and war. Humanity is fighting off whatever diseases and virii they can. War? War is the variable I see as succeeding in ending the threat of humans exterminating the other species around them. Sure, it may cause the razing of thousands of square miles of land or ocean in the process. However, it will let my squirrel and kitty buddies play once everything grows over the nice graves of those biased, selfish humans who once littered their homes with cars, houses, and styrofoam eating utensils.

Magrus wrote:My nation? You make a horrendous assumption based on my comment. I said "the world", not my nation. The world, as in including all species. You see, it disgusts me that "people" base their opinions on the fact humans seem to be superior than other species and call it "unbiased". It IS biased, horribly so. Every time one human kills another human, I smile. Why? Humans breed like rats, and are doing their utmost to live longer, and through things that will leave most other species extinct.

Why is this a problem? The birth->death ratio is horribly out of whack with humans. In nature, there are generally safe guards to prevent over-population among other species. In humans? What is there? Disease, virii, and war. Humanity is fighting off whatever diseases and virii they can. War? War is the variable I see as succeeding in ending the threat of humans exterminating the other species around them. Sure, it may cause the razing of thousands of square miles of land or ocean in the process. However, it will let my squirrel and kitty buddies play once everything grows over the nice graves of those biased, selfish humans who once littered their homes with cars, houses, and styrofoam eating utensils.

The question is, would you still smile if someone came and killed all the people you love, or are they "superior" to others and therefore not "rats" like everyone else? If one of your friends got ill, would you refuse him treatment and let him die, "to end the threat of humans exterminating anything and everything"? If the answer is yes, I'd still dislike your opinion, but at least it'd be sincere.

moltovir wrote:The question is, would you still smile if someone came and killed all the people you love, or are they "superior" to others and therefore not "rats" like everyone else? If one of your friends got ill, would you refuse him treatment and let him die, "to end the threat of humans exterminating anything and everything"? If the answer is yes, I'd still dislike your opinion, but at least it'd be sincere.

That depends to be honest. Of course I will be upset over losing someone I care about. However, I really am of the opinion that humans are fighting nature in all of these cures for these diseases that are popping up. Diseases and dying of old age, and death during birth, from injury....all of those things happen to keep a check on how many people are straining resources around the world. Just because humans are capable of cutting down the next square mile of trees to make a new housing track or mini mall or parking lot, doesn't mean they shouId or the ecosystem can cope with it.

I think your question leads more to the "what if it were you" type end of things? Yeah, if I knew that everyone was going. Everyone, I would volunteer to be first. It would not bother me if all of my loved ones went to. Thats just my belief system at work though. Death, in and of itself doesn't bother me. Missing someone would, but the dying doesn't.

Magrus wrote:I think your question leads more to the "what if it were you" type end of things? Yeah, if I knew that everyone was going. Everyone, I would volunteer to be first. It would not bother me if all of my loved ones went to. Thats just my belief system at work though. Death, in and of itself doesn't bother me. Missing someone would, but the dying doesn't.

I re-read this a few times, but I can't understand what you mean. Is going a euphemism for dying? If it is, then unless you know someone who plans to live forever, everyone is going and since I'd assume that's something you know, your statement can't logically exist since you would have committed suicide before writing it.

Sorry if I completely misunderstood what you wrote.

Sorry, I was still drunk from last night when I wrote that. Yes, it is a euphemism for dying. What I meant was, if for some reason I knew that everyone was going to die, as in immediately, non-natural death from age I wouldn't have a problem being the first to do so. I lack the whole survival instinct that everything else on this planet seems to have. *shrugs* However, that is not going to happen, as everything else on this planet has that instinct. I believe I am completely derailing this thread. For once, it wasn't about sex or booze though. :speech:

Voltaire- One of the first people I know of to give the finger to high society in his day and live.

Also, a note on George Washington: He wasnt that great of a general, he had very little real experience in leading men into combat, and none at all as the head of an army. He made many, many costly mistakes, and took (although I dont believe it was intentionally done) alot of credit for the success of his subordinates plans, rogue schemes, and plots. He had his good moments, but he had almost as many if not more bad ones. The British Army's over confidence, more than Washingtons genius led the revolutionary rabble to victory.

@CE: That Bertrand Russel essay was very interesting, thank you. That essay is very well written portrayal of my thoughts when I watch the news.