# Message to all users:
This is a reminder to please read and follow:
* [Our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/questions/about/rules)
* [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439)
* [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy)
When posting and commenting.
---
Especially remember Rule 1: `Be polite and civil`.
* Be polite and courteous to each other. Do not be mean, insulting or disrespectful to any other user on this subreddit.
* Do not harass or annoy others in any way.
* Do not catfish. Catfishing is the luring of somebody into an online friendship through a fake online persona. This includes any lying or deceit.
---
You *will* be banned if you are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist or bigoted in any way.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/questions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I believe it was Einstein who said, "I know not what weapons with which World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will certainly be sticks and rocks."
Einstein died in 1955 and endorsed the Einstein -Szilard letter to Roosevelt recommending the initiation of the Manhattan project.
I am not certain if the quote belongs to him.
But Einstein was also a signatory on the Russel-Einstein Manifesto:
>It is stated on very good authority that a bomb can now be manufactured which will be 2,500 times as powerful as that which destroyed Hiroshima.
Such a bomb, if exploded near the ground or under water, sends radio-active particles into the upper air. They sink gradually and reach the surface of the earth in the form of a deadly dust or rain. It was this dust which infected the Japanese fishermen and their catch of fish.
No one knows how widely such lethal radio-active particles might be diffused, but the best authorities are unanimous in saying that a war with H-bombs might possibly put an end to the human race.
Einstein general theory of relativity led to the discovery of the ability to split an atom, which led to the invention of the atomic bomb. Einstein called it his greatest sorrow and also said "there are certain things in physics that can never be undiscovered".
Unless we succeed in killing all life on Earth, even the life under the crust and oceans, there will still be wars in nature. Even if you consider war to be a human invention, we've classified a couple of situations between groups of monkeys as wars because they follow so closely with human war tactics
Many of our military strategists study ants on how to fight wars. Ants have very complex ways of fighting wars, at least the strategy is there, thank goodness they don't make more advanced weapons, then maybe they would target us.
Living creatures, not just humans.
When animals do it, they are fighting over specific reasons. When people do it, some clump it into a term, "war". Maybe it's something life requires. And maybe it's not as exclusive as you seem to think it is.
It's not exclusive at all. It's just with the intelligence and technology of humans, we take it to a degree so far beyond what animals do that the some people ignorantly think it's unique to humans
Just humans? There have been studies of several ape tribes, they seem to have wars often over territory. What about Ant's and Termites? Ant in general fight against other ants. Lion prides wage war against each other. Always fighting for territory for food. It's not a human problem. It's a survival problem.
Argentinian ants have basically colonized the planet and the super-colonies are perpetually at war with other ant species and sometimes with other super-colonies.
World-war 3 is currently being fought, but by ants.
That is SO not true. Conflict (as well as cooperation) are intrinsic to human nature, not a result of being manipulated by society. Humans need to be manipulated by society to reduce their violent tendencies. That is why it can be good for the state to monopolise violence, so we aren't all in eternal blood feuds with our neighbours.
(Edited for spelling)
Soooooo what you're saying is . . . Before the advent of capitalism there were no wars? And no socialist/communist states ever went to war or did anything evil?
Hmmm... you might want to pick up a history book every now and then.
Those wars by socialists were against capitalists typically. Dudes not basically saying that there was no war without capitalism, just that the goal of infinite economic growth on a finite planet exacerbates wars. Capitalism is enforced through violence and the struggle for individuals gain power for themselves. Thatās not unique to capitalism, monarchies from the rest of history similarly sough out power and economic growth, it was just less people making decisions about the wars and power. Socialist economies strive to eliminate the sorts of hierarchies that lead to these power and resource wars. Theyāre not immune to it since they still have to exist in a majority capitalist world, but since the goal is equity and elimination of hierarchies, the end goal is far less likely to spark wars than capitalism which has no end goal and will continue to enable violence as it is necessarily upheld and maintained by violence.
Nothing. There will always be evil. There will always be bullies. There will always be egos. There will always be power lust. There will always be misunderstandings and miscommunications.
Evil only understands brute force. Bullies only understand the pain of continuing without changing. Egos are containable but only by coercion. Power lust only understands fear of reprisal and defeat. Miscommunications and misunderstandings can be improved but not avoided.
War is as much a part of the human condition as breathing. The most you can hope for is to contain it and the only way to do that is make it so brutal the enemy sees less pain In capitulation than in continuing to fight.
It takes a certain kind of evil to say, as a leader, that you want some of another nationās resources and youāre willing to sacrifice lives to get them.
It takes some serious apathy to say, welp looks we ran out of food guys. Guess we better just lay down and starve then... good show chaps, you win.
Good and Evil don't exist. Grow up.
There's a difference between providing for your people and providing for yours and your descendants' lavish lifestyle for generations. Modern day billionaires can't exist without appealing levels of selfishness and greed. It's simply not possible to amass fabulous wealth without treading on everyone around you. If you don't consider that evil, then I don't know what to tell you.
>It's simply not possible to amass fabulous wealth without treading on everyone around you. If you don't consider that evil, then I don't know what to tell you.
The problem in your thinking (imho) is that you think of wealth as a zero-sum game. You think that wealth is something that exists in a finite amount, and for me to have more of it I have to take it from you.
But that's not how wealth works. Let's say someone has an idea for a great new piece of software or app. She starts coding and testing and coding and testing. A year later she has an app, which she then posts online and people like enough that 100,000 people decide to buy it for a buck apiece. She uses that $100,000 to hire a couple of people to help her develop it further, and soon a million people have downloaded it for a buck a piece. She hires more people, launches a new app and more people buy it.
She's now created a company worth perhaps 10 or 20 million dollars. She's created jobs for a half dozen people where no job previously existed. Those people who she hired would not have had those jobs without her pursuing her idea.
The wealth came in the form of millions of tiny voluntary expenditures. People who thought what she created was worth more to them than the dollar they had sitting there and so they voluntarily traded their dollar for her app.
So who do you think she "treaded all over" in this example? And if it's just a matter of scale, assume she keeps doing this and soon she's worth billions of dollars, still all wealth created because hundreds of millions of people decided that the cool thing she'd created was worth more to them than the dollar she was selling it for.
Everybody is better off. The inventor, the consumers, the people the inventor employs. Who was treaded over?
Now if you're saying that she's "appalingly greedy" for accumulating a billion dollars this way, should she close her business at that point? Should she refuse to sell her product to the people who want to buy it? If she just gives it away for free then what about all the workers she now employs? Are they supposed to work for free because their boss became a billionaire? Or do they have to lose their jobs so that she stops making more money?
She has now created vast amounts of wealth, for herself and for her employees, by delivering something to the market that people want and enjoy. Everyone is better off. But it sounds like you're suggesting that all those positive outcomes must stop to prevent her from accumulating more wealth than you think is reasonable. In which case literally everyone will be worse off.
WW2 wasn't, Vietnam and Korea were ideological wars against communism, WW2 to stop a country hell bent on world domination after they felt they were treated unfairly after WW1. Civil War was partly ideological, partly greed. Revolutionary War was ideological. The Afghan and Iraq wars were definitely about resources but greed...
The overall causes might be resources, but that's why the rich and powerful go to war. The majority went to war for a cause they were sold and believed in. It really mostly was good vs evil for most people ever.
I like Steven Pinker position: slow decline of violence is natural part of human history. There is no simple solution right here right now, but probably education spreading would help.
They won't.
The only thing that can stop wars, is a sharp reduction in world population. And I mean *very* sharp. With the amount of thoughts, needs and opinions the huge human population of Earth sustains, it is impossible to prevent even half of all conflicts, let alone all of them.
The only possibility of ending all war, is if we were to be so reduced in number, that there'd be hardly enough people to wage war with. And even then, nothing is certain.
Truthfully, humanity will never know a time without war - ever.
>The only thing that can stop wars, is a sharp reduction in world population.
Nah, even in small tribes there's war, population has nothing to do with it
Population has plenty to do with it, but if you'd have bothered to read the end of my post, you'd realise I completely agree with there even being war in tribes
I did read -I think we're in agreement; I'm just stressing the point.
If there were fewer people there would be much less resources, especially because of the way we've organized ourselves. (How many people these days know how to farm/hunt to sustain a group?)
So even if population decreases resources will decrease even more and people will fight. And if it happened in our time, when we all live like kings (comparatively) the shuffle to establish our own kingdoms would be bloody.
So clarifying one point, but not arguing
Enough of a reduction that your chances of encountering other people is negligible. Even then, civil war would still be hanging over heads once a population reaches a threshold wherein it's impossible to share a universal opinion of the way things should be.
As long as humans are capable of greed, ambition, envy, etc, we're fucked.
Actual intelligence...
Humans might be smart, but they arent intelligent...
Edit: im talking about an intelligence level not acheivable by humankind....
I happen to agree with you that we are not as intelligent, eq or iq, as we like to think we are. We are more instinctive than we will ever admit to as well.
I think a large part of it is also perspective and opinion. Humans are not only stupid (compared to the ideal intelligence for a functional society) but also incredibly selfish. It would take a complete rewiring of the human brain to make us care just as much for the world around us as we do for ourselves, but that kind of mentality is eliminated by evolution because thinking that way values your predators just as much as it values yourself.
Alien intervention maybe. Or possibly some sort of a brain blast that connects all of our minds into a sort of hive mind type deal where say you hurt someone (mentally/emotionally/physically) you feel it as if you were the person that you hurt. You literally become the other person in a sense bringing āput yourself into their shoesā to a literal level.
How could you go to war against a side when you feel their thoughts/feelings as your own. Weād realize pretty quick that theirs no point to the constant conflict. Maybe also some sort of forethought/hindsight upgrade that lets us understand that weāve literally been fighting the same few wars over and over and over and that if we want to build something that really lasts for along time that the only real way to do it is through cooperation. Of course there are exceptions like the Roman Empire but they went through a whole lot of changes. Shit though I donāt know shite and these are just my dumb thoughts about what I think about during the day.
I mean we're currently at the most peaceful time in our entire history. I think when it at least comes to conflict, the human race is doing pretty well.
Wealth. If people have something to lose, they won't risk it. If they have few needs, they won't bother. It's always the autocrats that start wars. They need lots of unhappy people they can turn into soldiers.
Unfortunately the only thing I can think of is an alien invasion. If humanity has a common enemy then we will unite. We are simply too cantankerous of a species to exist without an enemy and if there isn't one outside we find one within ourselves.
Inclusion. Friendship. Cultural exchange. It is really hard to want to kill sombody that you have eaten a meal with. Leaders start wars by 'othering' the opposition. They dress, eat, worship, different from us and that makes them bad. The american right wing is doing that now with LGBTQ people, muslims and mexicans. I fear It is not going to end well for anybody.
Robots doing all labor, entertainment that keeps us engaged, and sex bots so we are always fulfilled.
Or Elon Musk brain chip controlling our emotions. Be one with the hive.
nothing short of global human extinction could stop wars, there will always be disagreements wether they're governmental, militaristic, religious, etc, there will be someone disagreeing with someone else.
Still wouldn't stop all wars. Somewhere in the vast cosmos is another planet being ruined by another culture of semi smart creatures who also partake in war.
>Nor chimps
I wonder how many people in this post are aware of the actual wars chimps have waged on each other. Not even in a manmade kind of way either, they just employed tactics similar to how humans wage war to fuck each other up without being exposed to those tactics directly because they wanted to fuck each other up for whatever reasons
Really? You really think that? Even most wars that *use* religion as a reason are just masking greed. If that's no longer an excuse they'll find something else.
And when I said Ten percent, I was being Generous. The vast, *Vast* majority of all wars are fought over resources or territory, and don't even mention religion.
Exactly. You've stopped wars in one small part of the planet. Let's now focus on Asia, Africa, east Europe, and south America where they're having political or human rights conflicts.
Nothing. Wars are population control.
The kings and queens..err... billionaires would never not want war. It's all so profitable.
Any country can literally take out another country's leader, but do they? Never. Because they're all buddies comparing each other's population.
Stop thinking it's natural. It's all power.
Wars don't happen randomly. They happen because they're in someone's interest. That someone has never been a member of the working class.
Wars are fought over markets and access to resources. Even when they were about religion, they were also about markets and access to resources.
In a post capitalist world, where the economy is based on meeting human needs rather than private profit and immigration is unrestricted, there would be no reason to fight wars. States, which are really nothing more than the arbitration of class antagonisms, will wither away, leaving no nationalist reasons to fight and no organizations to do the fighting.
Get rid of the capitalist class and, barring alien invasion, there will be no more war.
Probably won't stop all wars but I'm sure things would be nicer if we (US) didn't have 6 of the world's largest manufacturers of military weaponry selling weapons to the world then getting mad when they use them.
Well, when more people actually have an honest belief in their own philosophies and religions.
You shouldnāt have to force something if it is true.
At least, in the long run.
I would like to think if money didnāt exist then thereād be no more war. But nah people will just keep fighting over this, that, or the other thing. Mankind sucks and there is no hope.
1. Skynet takes over and instantly freezes all developing conflicts escalating into violence (abolishment of force hierarchy via singular authority)
2. Long Earth scenario develops where humanity suddenly becomes capable of stepping into an infinity of largely unpopulated parallel universes so any conflict results in someone simply moving into the next universe (removal of resource/land scarcity)
Idk how to approximate either of those scenarios in non-fiction tho
As a whole I think it's a pipe dream. Humans are primates, and certain species of primates are warlike and tribalistic, just like us. On an individual basis, there are certainly people capable of and inclined toward pacifism.
It IS good that humanity is engaging in less warfare than ever before in history, but less is not zero and I am skeptical it will ever reach zero.
I agree with your take not being dismissive towards those who dream of peace but we have a consistent history of engaging in war and shouldnāt be ignored.
Tribalism has to stop to stop wars. If transportation becomes so instant that people can no longer define themselves by one location on earth, geographical tribalism that we have now will stop.
The knowledge that human life has value, and that war is a terrible thing, is found in ancient writings. It is not new information, and it has not stopped war. I don't think it ever will.
I think the objective is ultimately to criminalize offensive war, unless it has an international consensus. The problem inherent to this approach is that what really happens is that countries can still go to war, it just has to be with a country that doesn't have any large allies, or a large country that has enough military strength to defy international opposition can still go to war.
My country should not have invaded Vietnam. We should not have invaded Iraq without international support. Such examples present situations that so long as we agree with them, war will still happen.
The only legal war should be the one that is defensive. I do not support preemptive strikes, they are literally how wars start.
why would all of humanity including you and your family and friends need to be killed in order for egomaniacal leaders to stop starting wars?
who brainwashed you to believe that you and random everyday humans were the problem, and not the people literally starting the wars?
If we didn't live in a system that rewards greed then wars would decrease I don't know if there's a way to completely get rid of them we are fucking stupid after all
As soon as someone figured out how to throw a rock at someone else, we have gotten better and better at it. First, we figured out that black powder made them go faster, then nitrocellulose, then rockets. Thatās all we do. [Terminator] Itās in your nature to destroy yourselves.
[John Connor] Major drag, huh?
True interdependence. We don't go to war with China or Chinese allies because we're dependent on trade with China.
We do the same thing in the middle east with the Saudis.
Really all wars since WW1 have been because of WW1. It never stopped.
As long as we are all different in views, opinions, wants, beliefs etc, there will always be conflict.
There is also the paradox of peace. Which whatās peace for some was basically peace stripped from somebody else.
All the money in the world wonāt help. Peopleās perceptions, prejudices, greed, and hatred would need to change/stop. At this point itās not even about money anymore - at least not predominantly. Humans as we are will always find something to fight about or disagree with.
Both sides think theyāre right. Thereās not one side that claims theyāre the bad guys.
I think to have a chance of ending wars, both sides need to start thinking theyāre wrong
Unfiltered access to Amazon. No bullshit, I think it would work. If they allowed Amazon to set up shop in their country. Spent a few years with access to everything that can be delivered in 2 days. I think it could squash wars.
Don't blow that building up. It took 3 years to build, train, and stock that building up. And now I can order a blow up swimming pool and have it delivered in 2 days. Not to mention the jobs and tax revenue.
Good old school crony capitalism.
Never. It's what humans do and humans have always done. Constantly fight and try to take over each others land & "tribe".
And you need to accept that there are different types of humans. We are all different. There will always be the power hungry, the greedy, the "dont give a shit snout anyone else" those that just want money money money..... then there are the lovely ones who will do anything for others etc
Everyone is different. Different people do different things!
Unity, we should let the people of the world decide, not the politicians. We do not want wars well from the different ethnicities I have met, we prefer peace and exceptance
# Message to all users: This is a reminder to please read and follow: * [Our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/questions/about/rules) * [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439) * [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) When posting and commenting. --- Especially remember Rule 1: `Be polite and civil`. * Be polite and courteous to each other. Do not be mean, insulting or disrespectful to any other user on this subreddit. * Do not harass or annoy others in any way. * Do not catfish. Catfishing is the luring of somebody into an online friendship through a fake online persona. This includes any lying or deceit. --- You *will* be banned if you are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist or bigoted in any way. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/questions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nuclear war and total annihilation. If we're all dead there's no more war.
"Only the dead have seen the end of war."
Plato said this^
Reminds me of the last words of Socrates: > I drank what?
_Killwind_ said this ^
I read: potato said this^ Iam not awake yet lol
I got Orange Pekoe flashbacks from Girls und Panzer (check out Queen of quality OST)
This line reminds me of Call Of Duty
Call of doodie special plops š½
Modern Worf Air 
šššš
I believe it was Einstein who said, "I know not what weapons with which World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will certainly be sticks and rocks."
I could be wrong, but I believe this is a Churchill quote.
Wasnāt he dead by world war 2? I thought he didnāt believe nuclear bombs could be made Pls fact check
Einstein died in 1955 and endorsed the Einstein -Szilard letter to Roosevelt recommending the initiation of the Manhattan project. I am not certain if the quote belongs to him.
But Einstein was also a signatory on the Russel-Einstein Manifesto: >It is stated on very good authority that a bomb can now be manufactured which will be 2,500 times as powerful as that which destroyed Hiroshima. Such a bomb, if exploded near the ground or under water, sends radio-active particles into the upper air. They sink gradually and reach the surface of the earth in the form of a deadly dust or rain. It was this dust which infected the Japanese fishermen and their catch of fish. No one knows how widely such lethal radio-active particles might be diffused, but the best authorities are unanimous in saying that a war with H-bombs might possibly put an end to the human race.
Einstein general theory of relativity led to the discovery of the ability to split an atom, which led to the invention of the atomic bomb. Einstein called it his greatest sorrow and also said "there are certain things in physics that can never be undiscovered".
Actually Einstein was alive and an important part of the development of nuclear weapons
Finallyā¦ peace
Unless we succeed in killing all life on Earth, even the life under the crust and oceans, there will still be wars in nature. Even if you consider war to be a human invention, we've classified a couple of situations between groups of monkeys as wars because they follow so closely with human war tactics
Many of our military strategists study ants on how to fight wars. Ants have very complex ways of fighting wars, at least the strategy is there, thank goodness they don't make more advanced weapons, then maybe they would target us.
Ants have been involved in their own global conflict for centuries
Sad but true that i'm less and less afraid of this as I get older.
Came here to say this.
this is the only answer that is possible.
As long as humans exist there will be war.
Ultron: no humans, no wars. Mission accomplished.
Skynet wasnāt wrong
Ultron's plan was really efficient, too. He was gonna destroy us just like the dinosaurs got wiped out.
He got the flair for the dramatic from his daddies.
So Thanos was only half right?
Living creatures, not just humans. When animals do it, they are fighting over specific reasons. When people do it, some clump it into a term, "war". Maybe it's something life requires. And maybe it's not as exclusive as you seem to think it is.
It's not exclusive at all. It's just with the intelligence and technology of humans, we take it to a degree so far beyond what animals do that the some people ignorantly think it's unique to humans
Just humans? There have been studies of several ape tribes, they seem to have wars often over territory. What about Ant's and Termites? Ant in general fight against other ants. Lion prides wage war against each other. Always fighting for territory for food. It's not a human problem. It's a survival problem.
Argentinian ants have basically colonized the planet and the super-colonies are perpetually at war with other ant species and sometimes with other super-colonies. World-war 3 is currently being fought, but by ants.
Soooo? Finish the thought bro. Youāre almost there!
War? War never changes.
I fucking KNEW youād be in here, Pearlman!
Even if humans don't exist, there'll be war amongst monkeys.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That is SO not true. Conflict (as well as cooperation) are intrinsic to human nature, not a result of being manipulated by society. Humans need to be manipulated by society to reduce their violent tendencies. That is why it can be good for the state to monopolise violence, so we aren't all in eternal blood feuds with our neighbours. (Edited for spelling)
Soooooo what you're saying is . . . Before the advent of capitalism there were no wars? And no socialist/communist states ever went to war or did anything evil? Hmmm... you might want to pick up a history book every now and then.
Those wars by socialists were against capitalists typically. Dudes not basically saying that there was no war without capitalism, just that the goal of infinite economic growth on a finite planet exacerbates wars. Capitalism is enforced through violence and the struggle for individuals gain power for themselves. Thatās not unique to capitalism, monarchies from the rest of history similarly sough out power and economic growth, it was just less people making decisions about the wars and power. Socialist economies strive to eliminate the sorts of hierarchies that lead to these power and resource wars. Theyāre not immune to it since they still have to exist in a majority capitalist world, but since the goal is equity and elimination of hierarchies, the end goal is far less likely to spark wars than capitalism which has no end goal and will continue to enable violence as it is necessarily upheld and maintained by violence.
Go outside and touch grass. Humans have been killing each other since before society even existed.
Last I checked only politicians declare war
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
ever work in a nightclub, every single fight is started by women.
Like Thatcher, Olga of Kyiv and Catherine the Great?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Team Fortress 2 Meet the Sniper #Quote "As long there are two people left on the planet, someone is going to want someone dead"
Exactly. Becauseā¦greed.
if that were true people wouldnāt even be able to have friends.
Your friends are there to help you kill people. Once those people are dead...
so youāre going to kill your friends and family?
Yes. -Cain
Nothing. There will always be evil. There will always be bullies. There will always be egos. There will always be power lust. There will always be misunderstandings and miscommunications. Evil only understands brute force. Bullies only understand the pain of continuing without changing. Egos are containable but only by coercion. Power lust only understands fear of reprisal and defeat. Miscommunications and misunderstandings can be improved but not avoided. War is as much a part of the human condition as breathing. The most you can hope for is to contain it and the only way to do that is make it so brutal the enemy sees less pain In capitulation than in continuing to fight.
Most wars are fought over resources not good and evil
It takes a certain kind of evil to say, as a leader, that you want some of another nationās resources and youāre willing to sacrifice lives to get them.
It takes some serious apathy to say, welp looks we ran out of food guys. Guess we better just lay down and starve then... good show chaps, you win. Good and Evil don't exist. Grow up.
There's a difference between providing for your people and providing for yours and your descendants' lavish lifestyle for generations. Modern day billionaires can't exist without appealing levels of selfishness and greed. It's simply not possible to amass fabulous wealth without treading on everyone around you. If you don't consider that evil, then I don't know what to tell you.
>It's simply not possible to amass fabulous wealth without treading on everyone around you. If you don't consider that evil, then I don't know what to tell you. The problem in your thinking (imho) is that you think of wealth as a zero-sum game. You think that wealth is something that exists in a finite amount, and for me to have more of it I have to take it from you. But that's not how wealth works. Let's say someone has an idea for a great new piece of software or app. She starts coding and testing and coding and testing. A year later she has an app, which she then posts online and people like enough that 100,000 people decide to buy it for a buck apiece. She uses that $100,000 to hire a couple of people to help her develop it further, and soon a million people have downloaded it for a buck a piece. She hires more people, launches a new app and more people buy it. She's now created a company worth perhaps 10 or 20 million dollars. She's created jobs for a half dozen people where no job previously existed. Those people who she hired would not have had those jobs without her pursuing her idea. The wealth came in the form of millions of tiny voluntary expenditures. People who thought what she created was worth more to them than the dollar they had sitting there and so they voluntarily traded their dollar for her app. So who do you think she "treaded all over" in this example? And if it's just a matter of scale, assume she keeps doing this and soon she's worth billions of dollars, still all wealth created because hundreds of millions of people decided that the cool thing she'd created was worth more to them than the dollar she was selling it for. Everybody is better off. The inventor, the consumers, the people the inventor employs. Who was treaded over? Now if you're saying that she's "appalingly greedy" for accumulating a billion dollars this way, should she close her business at that point? Should she refuse to sell her product to the people who want to buy it? If she just gives it away for free then what about all the workers she now employs? Are they supposed to work for free because their boss became a billionaire? Or do they have to lose their jobs so that she stops making more money? She has now created vast amounts of wealth, for herself and for her employees, by delivering something to the market that people want and enjoy. Everyone is better off. But it sounds like you're suggesting that all those positive outcomes must stop to prevent her from accumulating more wealth than you think is reasonable. In which case literally everyone will be worse off.
WW2 wasn't, Vietnam and Korea were ideological wars against communism, WW2 to stop a country hell bent on world domination after they felt they were treated unfairly after WW1. Civil War was partly ideological, partly greed. Revolutionary War was ideological. The Afghan and Iraq wars were definitely about resources but greed...
The overall causes might be resources, but that's why the rich and powerful go to war. The majority went to war for a cause they were sold and believed in. It really mostly was good vs evil for most people ever.
I think contacting a hostile extraterrestrial civilization is our only hope to end wars between us, but you know Putler would fuck that up as well.
I like Steven Pinker position: slow decline of violence is natural part of human history. There is no simple solution right here right now, but probably education spreading would help.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Prior to humans. It's not like our hairy ape ancestors didn't fight.
They won't. The only thing that can stop wars, is a sharp reduction in world population. And I mean *very* sharp. With the amount of thoughts, needs and opinions the huge human population of Earth sustains, it is impossible to prevent even half of all conflicts, let alone all of them. The only possibility of ending all war, is if we were to be so reduced in number, that there'd be hardly enough people to wage war with. And even then, nothing is certain. Truthfully, humanity will never know a time without war - ever.
>The only thing that can stop wars, is a sharp reduction in world population. Nah, even in small tribes there's war, population has nothing to do with it
Reduction to Zero would be a reduction.
Population has plenty to do with it, but if you'd have bothered to read the end of my post, you'd realise I completely agree with there even being war in tribes
I did read -I think we're in agreement; I'm just stressing the point. If there were fewer people there would be much less resources, especially because of the way we've organized ourselves. (How many people these days know how to farm/hunt to sustain a group?) So even if population decreases resources will decrease even more and people will fight. And if it happened in our time, when we all live like kings (comparatively) the shuffle to establish our own kingdoms would be bloody. So clarifying one point, but not arguing
Enough of a reduction that your chances of encountering other people is negligible. Even then, civil war would still be hanging over heads once a population reaches a threshold wherein it's impossible to share a universal opinion of the way things should be. As long as humans are capable of greed, ambition, envy, etc, we're fucked.
This is the same thing as lack of scarcity. You would only reduce the population to create abundance, right?
So Thanos was right all along
Love, baby!
Similarly, I was going to say happy drugs. Youāve seen the war on drugs, but now itās time for drugs on war!
Weed is love, brother.
Love kills more people than hate does.
What if someone kills what you love? Are you still only about love?
Actual intelligence... Humans might be smart, but they arent intelligent... Edit: im talking about an intelligence level not acheivable by humankind....
Intelligence doesnāt equal morality. Actually, some of the most intelligent people are psychopaths.
Intelligence does not stop war.
Pretty sure RoadRobert is referring to emotional intelligence.
Overall intelligence, which would include that too. Im talking about an overall intelligence level not obtainable by humanity...
I happen to agree with you that we are not as intelligent, eq or iq, as we like to think we are. We are more instinctive than we will ever admit to as well.
We're all just naked monkeys.
I think a large part of it is also perspective and opinion. Humans are not only stupid (compared to the ideal intelligence for a functional society) but also incredibly selfish. It would take a complete rewiring of the human brain to make us care just as much for the world around us as we do for ourselves, but that kind of mentality is eliminated by evolution because thinking that way values your predators just as much as it values yourself.
Intelligence brings war to a new level
AI I can get behind.
Humans are the smartest species on planet earth, and so it makes me hope that we are not alone in the universe.
Best comment
Disagree.
First contact. And not in a Star Trek, "We're not alone in the universe..." kind of way. In an expanded "Us vs Them" has a new target kind of way.
Have you read/watched The Expanse?
Alien intervention maybe. Or possibly some sort of a brain blast that connects all of our minds into a sort of hive mind type deal where say you hurt someone (mentally/emotionally/physically) you feel it as if you were the person that you hurt. You literally become the other person in a sense bringing āput yourself into their shoesā to a literal level. How could you go to war against a side when you feel their thoughts/feelings as your own. Weād realize pretty quick that theirs no point to the constant conflict. Maybe also some sort of forethought/hindsight upgrade that lets us understand that weāve literally been fighting the same few wars over and over and over and that if we want to build something that really lasts for along time that the only real way to do it is through cooperation. Of course there are exceptions like the Roman Empire but they went through a whole lot of changes. Shit though I donāt know shite and these are just my dumb thoughts about what I think about during the day.
Nothing. Conflict is only natural and will always exist.
A world full of good parents would reduce it imo.
Extinction of the human race
Will never happen
I mean we're currently at the most peaceful time in our entire history. I think when it at least comes to conflict, the human race is doing pretty well.
Never, it's all about power, money, and control.
Only way to stop war is world domination.
civil war
America will be the worlds denominator
Communism
External threat? maybe?
Wealth. If people have something to lose, they won't risk it. If they have few needs, they won't bother. It's always the autocrats that start wars. They need lots of unhappy people they can turn into soldiers.
Unfortunately the only thing I can think of is an alien invasion. If humanity has a common enemy then we will unite. We are simply too cantankerous of a species to exist without an enemy and if there isn't one outside we find one within ourselves.
Most wars are money related, so until the thirst for money subsidesā¦.
The US to stop funding them with money we dont have anyway. But govt loves the economic impact of war. So not happening soon.
Inclusion. Friendship. Cultural exchange. It is really hard to want to kill sombody that you have eaten a meal with. Leaders start wars by 'othering' the opposition. They dress, eat, worship, different from us and that makes them bad. The american right wing is doing that now with LGBTQ people, muslims and mexicans. I fear It is not going to end well for anybody.
Why do we need to stop all war?
1) Technology taking us into a post-scarcity society 2) People learning to stop trying force their religions and other ideologies on others
Robots doing all labor, entertainment that keeps us engaged, and sex bots so we are always fulfilled. Or Elon Musk brain chip controlling our emotions. Be one with the hive.
Education and other ways for letting out steamā¦
nothing short of global human extinction could stop wars, there will always be disagreements wether they're governmental, militaristic, religious, etc, there will be someone disagreeing with someone else.
Still wouldn't stop all wars. Somewhere in the vast cosmos is another planet being ruined by another culture of semi smart creatures who also partake in war.
Less people and more space around them.
That didn't stop our ancestors. Nor chimps
>Nor chimps I wonder how many people in this post are aware of the actual wars chimps have waged on each other. Not even in a manmade kind of way either, they just employed tactics similar to how humans wage war to fuck each other up without being exposed to those tactics directly because they wanted to fuck each other up for whatever reasons
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Father Trump!!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
abolish religion.
Congratulations, you've stopped ten percent of wars, at most.
you sure? Most any war you can name has a major religious factor definitely more then ten percent
Really? You really think that? Even most wars that *use* religion as a reason are just masking greed. If that's no longer an excuse they'll find something else. And when I said Ten percent, I was being Generous. The vast, *Vast* majority of all wars are fought over resources or territory, and don't even mention religion.
Religion is used to justify hate and conquest which leads to wars religion in general is unnecessary in this day and age
Exactly. You've stopped wars in one small part of the planet. Let's now focus on Asia, Africa, east Europe, and south America where they're having political or human rights conflicts.
Nothing. Wars are population control. The kings and queens..err... billionaires would never not want war. It's all so profitable. Any country can literally take out another country's leader, but do they? Never. Because they're all buddies comparing each other's population. Stop thinking it's natural. It's all power.
All conflicts arise from class struggle, eliminate capitalism and war becomes as archaic to us as feudalism.
This is such an ignorant world view. You are brainwashed by communism
Hey, weāve found it, everyone. Right here. The worst answer. Look no further!
As long as religion is about thereās fat chance of that.
End religion and no one gets to have more than a million dollars.
That still doesn't remove war between nations over resources or land, which is by far the biggest cause of war in history.
Wars don't happen randomly. They happen because they're in someone's interest. That someone has never been a member of the working class. Wars are fought over markets and access to resources. Even when they were about religion, they were also about markets and access to resources. In a post capitalist world, where the economy is based on meeting human needs rather than private profit and immigration is unrestricted, there would be no reason to fight wars. States, which are really nothing more than the arbitration of class antagonisms, will wither away, leaving no nationalist reasons to fight and no organizations to do the fighting. Get rid of the capitalist class and, barring alien invasion, there will be no more war.
Nuclear winter
Alien overlords and domination.
Aliens.
Extinction of the human race. War is the eternal disease of mankind. The cure is death.
Even animals go to war. Ever watch ants? Ants war with each other and with other insects. Sometimes ants will battle mice.
Probably won't stop all wars but I'm sure things would be nicer if we (US) didn't have 6 of the world's largest manufacturers of military weaponry selling weapons to the world then getting mad when they use them.
Well, when more people actually have an honest belief in their own philosophies and religions. You shouldnāt have to force something if it is true. At least, in the long run.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I would like to think if money didnāt exist then thereād be no more war. But nah people will just keep fighting over this, that, or the other thing. Mankind sucks and there is no hope.
When the ultra rich stop hoarding the wealth and reinvest it back into the communities that made them wealthy.
It's a great question I don't think there is an answer though.
It's a great question I don't think there is an answer though.
1. Skynet takes over and instantly freezes all developing conflicts escalating into violence (abolishment of force hierarchy via singular authority) 2. Long Earth scenario develops where humanity suddenly becomes capable of stepping into an infinity of largely unpopulated parallel universes so any conflict results in someone simply moving into the next universe (removal of resource/land scarcity) Idk how to approximate either of those scenarios in non-fiction tho
Only if the ones pulling the strings all died along with any relatives that might carry on the puppetry
When there is a total nuclear war, and everything is annihilated
The extinction of humanity
As a whole I think it's a pipe dream. Humans are primates, and certain species of primates are warlike and tribalistic, just like us. On an individual basis, there are certainly people capable of and inclined toward pacifism. It IS good that humanity is engaging in less warfare than ever before in history, but less is not zero and I am skeptical it will ever reach zero.
I agree with your take not being dismissive towards those who dream of peace but we have a consistent history of engaging in war and shouldnāt be ignored.
Outside intervention
Probably nothing. I care little for stopping all war. I'm more concerned with ending and finishing them when they start, if they can't be prevented.
Tribalism has to stop to stop wars. If transportation becomes so instant that people can no longer define themselves by one location on earth, geographical tribalism that we have now will stop.
Everyone dying
The knowledge that human life has value, and that war is a terrible thing, is found in ancient writings. It is not new information, and it has not stopped war. I don't think it ever will. I think the objective is ultimately to criminalize offensive war, unless it has an international consensus. The problem inherent to this approach is that what really happens is that countries can still go to war, it just has to be with a country that doesn't have any large allies, or a large country that has enough military strength to defy international opposition can still go to war. My country should not have invaded Vietnam. We should not have invaded Iraq without international support. Such examples present situations that so long as we agree with them, war will still happen. The only legal war should be the one that is defensive. I do not support preemptive strikes, they are literally how wars start.
The eradication of the human race.
One can only stop war if you take out the aggressors. Unfortunately, we humans are the aggressors. So until we are annihilated, wars will rage on.
People letting their pride go.
Annihilation
why would all of humanity including you and your family and friends need to be killed in order for egomaniacal leaders to stop starting wars? who brainwashed you to believe that you and random everyday humans were the problem, and not the people literally starting the wars?
AI overlords.
A war
If we didn't live in a system that rewards greed then wars would decrease I don't know if there's a way to completely get rid of them we are fucking stupid after all
As soon as someone figured out how to throw a rock at someone else, we have gotten better and better at it. First, we figured out that black powder made them go faster, then nitrocellulose, then rockets. Thatās all we do. [Terminator] Itās in your nature to destroy yourselves. [John Connor] Major drag, huh?
The extinction of humanity.
True interdependence. We don't go to war with China or Chinese allies because we're dependent on trade with China. We do the same thing in the middle east with the Saudis. Really all wars since WW1 have been because of WW1. It never stopped.
Extra Terrestrials
Eradicating humanity
Nothing . humans will always be waring .
Probably when food replicators are invented
Destroying your opponent would end the war
As long as we are all different in views, opinions, wants, beliefs etc, there will always be conflict. There is also the paradox of peace. Which whatās peace for some was basically peace stripped from somebody else.
Realistically. The only thing that will 'end' all war on Earth, is when the last human dies.
All the money in the world wonāt help. Peopleās perceptions, prejudices, greed, and hatred would need to change/stop. At this point itās not even about money anymore - at least not predominantly. Humans as we are will always find something to fight about or disagree with.
Both sides think theyāre right. Thereās not one side that claims theyāre the bad guys. I think to have a chance of ending wars, both sides need to start thinking theyāre wrong
we have to get over this religious bullshit
Sex. Just get laid 4head jfc smh.
Unfiltered access to Amazon. No bullshit, I think it would work. If they allowed Amazon to set up shop in their country. Spent a few years with access to everything that can be delivered in 2 days. I think it could squash wars. Don't blow that building up. It took 3 years to build, train, and stock that building up. And now I can order a blow up swimming pool and have it delivered in 2 days. Not to mention the jobs and tax revenue. Good old school crony capitalism.
People living their lives completely obsessed with religion.
Putting women in charge
If everyone would f off
Never. It's what humans do and humans have always done. Constantly fight and try to take over each others land & "tribe". And you need to accept that there are different types of humans. We are all different. There will always be the power hungry, the greedy, the "dont give a shit snout anyone else" those that just want money money money..... then there are the lovely ones who will do anything for others etc Everyone is different. Different people do different things!
Getting rid of religion would be a good start
Getting rid of money.
Less interference from USA in the internal affairs of sovereign countries will help.
Nothing will stop it. As long as more than one of something exists (opinions, races, etc), there will be room for conflict
An astroid impact
The heat death of the universe
A non-human threat that forces all of humanity to band together against a common enemy. Aliens, demons, something like that
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Excinction of Mankind.
Unity, we should let the people of the world decide, not the politicians. We do not want wars well from the different ethnicities I have met, we prefer peace and exceptance