I was listening to NPR yesterday . There was a news article citing the pro's and con's of using robots in warfare. The pro's cited more precise targeting with fewer civilian deaths. Being able to take out a sniper. The con's cited the indignity of being killed by something that does not understand human emotion. The risk of creating another arms race (profitable for some I am sure).
This put me in a contemplative mood. I thought how amazingly good we are at warfare. The amount of dollars spent on military advancements . Military think tanks. I thought how bad we are at peace. Is peace simply the spaces between war? Can anyone define peace? What would it take to create widespread peace for generations across the globe?What does peace mean to you? What instruments - political , economic , cultural, cognitive - do you believe would strengthen the gaps between wars and nurture them into long , peace filled eras ?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
"What would it take to create widespread peace for generations across the globe?"
I would say knowledge, respect and honesty.
Ironically Mind control has all of those and none of those at the same time, that is why it sometimes works and sometimes it does not.
"What would it take to create widespread peace for generations across the globe?"
A less knowledgeable person would say A NUKE and he woud technically be correct lol.
Fear does motivate peace, but it creates tension and grudges that might harbor even more wars later down the road.
"What instruments - political , economic , cultural, cognitive - do you believe would strengthen the gaps between wars and nurture them into long , peace filled eras ?"
Less misinformation and more knowledge to the people is a baby step in the right direction.
Honestly its sad... Spending so much money on war... Exploring science and technology for the means of enhancing killing machines rather than exploring space or trying to preserve this earth...
Truth is like many of my idols like sagan said, we have a small window of hope and we can turn around and go on the right path, and so far its only the scientists and a few others who seem to care..
chimp3 - "The pro's cited more precise targeting with fewer civilian deaths."
A sidenote: but I don't believe that either. Every new weapon system promises this, yet the non-combatant causality rate has remained basically unchanged throughout the modern period, almost as if that was the goal all along...
I think NPR is this radio station...
http://www.npr.org/
and article...
http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/04/28/476055707/weigh...
Actually, there has never been so much peace in the world before. The only difference today is 24/7 news and that we can know what's happening in every territory on the Earth. I think the world is moving in the right direction, if frustratingly slowly. The battle against disease, infant mortality and early death is being won too. Despite problems that Islamism and communism bring, there is much good news.
As for what brings peace and in addition to what JVL wrote: it is freedom of speech and expression combined with political stability.
1) Robots are an innovation that takes certain risk out of warfare. I have seen firsthand it's effect on a battle field. It isn't as precise as we are led to believe. Nothing can replace in person human assessment of battle situations. I could go on with lengthy discussions about this as a veteran of combat, but I won't.
2) The reason the US spends so much on defense(war) is because since the cold war (which has never really ended), the US has been in a spiraling escalation of competing forces. Granted the US has been one of the main escalators, but now it can't relent due to it's world competition. Plus the military complex lobbies heavily to secure contracts to profit from.
3) Peace, true peace can never be achieved. I think we can change the general direction. If we spend more on education and humanity efforts. If we can relieve suffering, hunger, and poverty, we can change the dynamic that creates war. That is a huge undertaking and requires a tremendous political commitment. With the Putins, Cruz's, and Trumps, of the world, there will never be peace. With large wealthy religious structures like the Southern Baptist and Catholics there can never be peace. With powerful groups like the NRA that gin up fear and prejudice, there will never be peace.
Hitler proved that the masses are basically ignorant sheep that are easily misled into supporting war and hate. At the onset of WWII Germany had the highest educated people per capita in the world, but they also suffered great economic strife. Hitler used ancient prejudices to create an environment of hate and prejudice, blaming the economic condition on those old prejudices. In today's world we do the same thing. Disenfranchised Muslims listen and obey radical leaders that blame their collective problems on Jews and the west, when it is the old Arab leaders that have caused their problems. Westerners blame the whole of the Islamic world for terrorism. In the US people like Trump exploit this fear of terrorism to attack Muslims, Latin immigrants, African-Americans, and the poor, to gin up an ignorant mass into doing his bidding.
Crime and terrorism is directly correlated to economics. Solve the economic issues and there will be less crime and terrorism.
Yes. I'm not sure about this bit though: "Hitler used ancient prejudices to create an environment of hate and prejudice,". Such prejudices and hate may have motivated Hitler but that wasn't essentially what motivated people to follow him. His support was for very contemporary and practical reasons. It was the failures of the Weimar Republic; the injustices of Versailles; the rejection of sole guilt for WW1 Germans perceived as being inflicted on them; the promises of employment and a future for their children; greater unity; occupation of the Rhineland; an end to hyper-inflation; a coherent-sounding socialist economic theory; restoration of 'national pride' (which still seems a good thing to some people today); and rearmament (among other things) that gained him support. WW2 can be seen as a continuation of WW1. A British historian wrote an excellent book called "The German Wars" that I think explained the origins of WW2 very cogently and concisely.
Yes you're right about WWII being a direct result of WWI, BUT..... Hitler used the ancient prejudices and fostered those prejudice to further his hate agenda. If it were only the 'Great War' and the shame and disgrace that the WWII Germans were fighting than the WWI assessment would be accurate.
Germans Sought a new self respect that they lost in WWI that is a given. That wouldn't cause them to hold prejudices against other Germans. NO economics and hate mongering by the NAZIs actually caused WWII to the greatest extent. There wouldn't have been a WWII if not for the NAZIs. Europe and Germany didn't have the stomach for another world war unless you ginned up a racial nationalism that fostered hate. Basically a civil war before a world war. That civil war came about because of economic strife. People were suffering and ready for a change, a violent change. Hitler blamed the economic strife on the Jews, then he blamed it on the rest of the world, THEN he acted on his idea of a ruling race ordained by god.
Look at America. We are infested with drug gangs. Why because in the USA every city has a section of disenfranchised people. Bad schools, police brutality, corrupt local leaders, low paying jobs. Children grow ing up in this environment have no mentoring, no opportunities and no guidelines. They see their parents marginalized, and strung out on drugs. The only people they see making it are drug dealers who sell mostly to the rich and middle class. This has become a generational and institutional situation that cannot be easily solved. And every conservative politician blames the people that are poor for every crime in the book. They blame the poor for the nation's ills even though the poor had little do nothing to do with it. That is a Hitler tactic. If you extend the blame into a nationalist propaganda tool you have war.
Kiva is an organization in which anyone can participate. You become a lender to small business people globally :
https://www.kiva.org/
This is an example of an economic instrument that I think helps build and define peace. Empowering women economically is especially effective.
Results of microloans seem to be mixed...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110610164640.htm
Quote: "Microfinance works," said Dean Karlan, economics professor at Yale University. "But it isn't the Hollywood ending that we've been sold." Unquote.
This organization's approach might be more sophisticated and the recipients better supported...
https://www.microloanfoundation.org.uk/what-we-do/
but I couldn't say which of them get the best results.
I also think focus is a point often overlooked. If people focus on war and learn to build bombs or do drugs, that's what they tend to do in life. We need to shift focus away from warfare and ideology (and religion) and towards the subject you've raised - how can we make humanity more peaceful. People around me look at the TV news and "news"papers and see a world in turmoil and falling apart. I see those too but I read New Scientist, Scientific American and other publications which show a world of wonder and human advances.
History is important for learning from. We learn the lessons correctly or repeat mistakes until we do learn. All too often history is used to defend an ideology, nationalism, tribalism or some other destructive 'ism.
I agree ZeffD. The microloan idea is at least a practice that is seeking to build mutually beneficial relationships between human beings. The practice can certainly be modified based on experiences with its strengths and weaknesses.