What are your ideas, that if you could implement would likely stop our species from warring so much?
I’m asking for a reasonable ones, but if not - at least make them funny :P
Restructure society to value cooperatation over competition.
Break down unjustifiable hierarchies where possible and reasonable. The flatter the power structure is without sacrificing much in the way of efficiency, the better.
I feel like this is the way. It’s more or less the idea with the EU, and I would say it’s working great. I just hope this level of cooperation reaches the whole world
Agreed. This won’t work 100% but it’s probably the closest we can get.
The complete extinction of the human race
Through evolution or genetic engineering
I agree with genetics engineering as the answer.
Our DNA has greed, power tripping, paranoia etc. hard coded somewhere. The correct combinations might stop all wars.
But all in all, wouldn’t it make humanity dull and unsatisfied? I wonder.What if we genetically engineered ourselves to make beans taste like lasagna and kindness feel as satisfying as getting a promotion?
I’d argue that humanity is humanity and we wouldn’t remove its complex emotions, philosophical wonders and existential dread.
Desire for more out of life, search of meaning, etc.
Unless we go all the way and engineer ever flowing euphoria from birth to death, for everyone. But then, what’s even the point?
at what point is that just eugenics tho
Rename to “armed conflict” or “special military operations”
You are now a moderator of BiPartisanConsensus@lemmy.warmachine
Mass extinction event. Breed out aggression from our species we seem to be doing that but slowly. Space mining could potentially stop us from having war in Earth at least. AI takeover have everyone live on their own virtual reality paradise. For the most reasonable I think the best way to end wars is education and uplifting poverty nations not exploit them.
Edit: We can just be like Switzerland be a direct democracy, with how slow they decide things it will be highly unlikely to go to war at all.
Kill everyone. No people, no wars! Win/win in my book
It certainly is a way… although I don’t feel like we would greatly benefit from it!
That’s moving the goal posts. Though killing everyone might fall under the “unreasonable” part of the question.
There is this dystopia anime series called From the New World. The premise is a portion of humanity gained psychic power and led to the collapse of society because it’s so powerful that order could not be enforced. Far into the future there’s a cluster of communities that’s able to exist, and the way they went about it was to genetically engineered humans so that they when they harm another human it triggers body functions that make it harder for them to breath and other things. Killing another human also kills the aggressor. It kind of works on the interpretative level so it’s possible that using drone could still have an effect, probably.
Even in the story they explored ways to circumvent it though, but that’s kind of a tangent.
This one was great, highly recommend it.
Off topic but on a side note, I spent the last 7 years trying to find back this anime. Thanks!
When there’s no war, people like Hitler won’t have any opposition to their rise to power. Haiti never gains independence. We’d never have escaped feudalism.
Most wars are stupid bullshit and suck ass. The military, especially the US military, is the biggest waste of money ever. That doesn’t mean that war isn’t directly tied to lots of positive things like innovation. There’s so much medical, industrial, and geographical knowledge we wouldn’t have if it wasn’t for some war, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. People’s ideas will always conflict because different groups of people are going to have goals unique to them that clash with others
Now if you were to ask how to stop unnecessary wars, better more efficient rulers. Most of the people in power today are complete hacks. It’s crazy
But I don’t think we’ll ever get rid of war and I don’t know if that’s necessarily that crazy? Ultimately it’s apart of how we grow as societies
Make those who declare war to actually fight the war. Put the two countries president on each side of an arena with some swords to fight to death, the one who lives wins the war. I’d record and pay pee view or something and the money raised would pay for homes for the poor in each country
The question is ill-posed.
War is just a tool, a collective act of violence that a group of people do against another in order to obtain a result. It’s always sad and it’s always bring sufference, but one could say sometimes it’s necessary. If you cancel war from the world witouth changin anything else, you will ends up probably damagin more the one with actually less power, since violence is usually the last resort in order to confront someone that hold political, economical and soft power upon you.
If you wanted to ask how we go to a situation when wars are not necessary and they are actually the less convenient and effective way to obtain collective or personal results, so that we ends up with no actual war are started, here’s my answer. We need to build a system that minimize close to zero the difference in power (every kind of power) between people, and we need to build an efficient an relieble system to intermediate and resolve the inevitable conflict between people and groups.
Benevolent global AI dictator. These never go wrong in sci-fi after all.
(has to be true AI like Daneel Olivaw, not this fake LLM crap though)
Would you like to play a game?
How about massive free psychedelic doses?
Universal basic income, universal food and shelter and education.
Yeah, most wars are about resources so becoming a post-scarcity would go a long way.
Exactly. At least an average person won’t sign up to get shot at.
Make everyone bulletproof and bombproof. If it is no longer possible to kill people using weapons of war, then there will no longer be a point to fighting the wars. Either that, or things will escalate to a point where it is no longer sustainable to fight wars that way, also solving it. Mind control, or gelatinising everyone into a singular hivemind is also an option.
Somewhat more realistically, I think that exchanges and the internet are the ways to go when it comes to ending wars. It’s a lot harder to fight wars when you can empathise with the other side, and see them as your peers. It’s one of the reasons why soldiers who took part in the Christmas Armistice were shuffled around, since they became friendly during the ceasefire, and would be less wanting to fire weapons on the friends that they made.
A lot of wars tend to centre around dehumnaising the other side, and treating them as the “enemy”. Allowing people to co-operate and communicate mutually makes it a lot harder for that to take place, since you have experience with the “enemy”, they’re not that bad. You’ve even got friends there, and training a gun on them with the expectation and desire to turn them into a corpse is just not on.
This is something my old history teacher once mentioned: we have games like COD and other esports titles. Just have all conflicts resolved via virtual combat instead of in real world violence
But that would require the loser to accept the loss.
The equivalent to someone losing and breaking their controller in this scenario is them invading the other country.
Education for everyone globally. War is, like all kinds of violence, an act or reaction of impotence (psychological term/not sexual).
It basically means nobody actually chooses to act violently or start wars. They do it because they believe consciously or subconsciously that they have no other options, because they can’t think of any options.
This is always a wrong assumption, because there is always a better option. The difficult part is to getting people to understand their actual options. Education solves this.
Did the last year in Europe fly by you unnoticed?
No. I think Putin started the war because he was already threatened by the economy and domestic rivalry. It’s not like he woke up one morning and thought it was a good idea to kill a lot of people. In his head it was the right thing to do for some reason, probably something involving saving his own ass.
He was able to gather some support for this horrible idea because there are many uneducated Russian voters who actually believe that the war has a purpose.
If they had been educated, he would not have had support.
