Peace and what it costs.
- Thread starter Zero Phoenix
- Start date
It is necessary. Look at Russia, which is a partly failed nation. Now all those smaller provinces in the Northern Caucasus are rebelling because they feel they are a nation on their own who deserve their own state. If the nation building in Russia had succeeded, they wouldnt rebel, as they would feel they are part of the great Russian nation with Moscow as its capital city.
Odd. I've said that about you three times now. ;?;
Brilliant move. It takes someone of Kaze's standing to compete with me. Step aside Noex. This is a kings game.
My point exactly. People need to organize in order to survive. Through culture and technology civilizations are born. If civilization cannot be brought about peacefully, then nations in the making turn to war. It is necessary because peace doesn't always work.
Brilliant move. It takes someone of Kaze's standing to compete with me. Step aside Noex. This is a kings game.
My point exactly. People need to organize in order to survive. Through culture and technology civilizations are born. If civilization cannot be brought about peacefully, then nations in the making turn to war. It is necessary because peace doesn't always work.
I cannot make any claim regarding the word "civilized" used by Zero because it is a very context-dependent word. However, what I can say is that, strictly from a historian point of view; hunter gatherers is a "culture" - not a civilization. Civilization can be defined (again - strictly from a historian's point of view) as follow;
Civilization is a form of human culture in which many people live in urban centers, have mastered the art of smelting metals, and have developed a method of writing. The first civilizations began in cities, which were larger, more populated, and more complex in their political, economic and social structure than Neolithic villages. One definition of civilization requires that a civilized people have a sense of history -- meaning that the past counts in the present.
Source: http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture1b.html
Mesoamerican cultures (Maya, Zapotec, Aztec etc.) fits into the definition of a civilization.
Civilization is a form of human culture in which many people live in urban centers, have mastered the art of smelting metals, and have developed a method of writing. The first civilizations began in cities, which were larger, more populated, and more complex in their political, economic and social structure than Neolithic villages. One definition of civilization requires that a civilized people have a sense of history -- meaning that the past counts in the present.
Source: http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture1b.html
Mesoamerican cultures (Maya, Zapotec, Aztec etc.) fits into the definition of a civilization.
Ugh...oh my oh my...
Lets see if i can say something with sense in this matter.
First of all.
If i take the definition of "civilization" as you guys explain it :
I would argue about one fact only.If we are talking about civilization as such. I can only say Native Americans where not an early form of civilization. Mayas and Aztecs where. if we are talking just about America. And i am not even fully convinced they really where the first ones,also. Jericho is a good example.Minoan,Mycenaen...etc..
Kaze you ninja'd me. <.< Meanie. ;ninja;
The second thing i would say is i can agree with saying joining a group and specialization is for the benefit of every part of the bigger organism, something that we find in our current society as well.
Aggressive acts only occur when something from outside threatens the survival of the whole organism, or if a part of the organism turns against it.
However. We are forgeting human nature as such. Never satisfied with what it has. Always needs more. Greed is a part of a human. But also a desire to survive is a part of our instincts.
In order to survive animals also form groups and packs. There for i would say it is not meant "just for humans" as such.
The key force common to all civilisations was warfare.That is true.
The theory is that only the fear of war could motivate people to give up the simple life and form complex societies.
To prove it, archaeologists still had to find a city from that very first stage of civilisation.
So here is an interesting link : http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/
Lets see if i can say something with sense in this matter.
First of all.
If i take the definition of "civilization" as you guys explain it :
I would argue about one fact only.If we are talking about civilization as such. I can only say Native Americans where not an early form of civilization. Mayas and Aztecs where. if we are talking just about America. And i am not even fully convinced they really where the first ones,also. Jericho is a good example.Minoan,Mycenaen...etc..
Kaze you ninja'd me. <.< Meanie. ;ninja;
The second thing i would say is i can agree with saying joining a group and specialization is for the benefit of every part of the bigger organism, something that we find in our current society as well.
Aggressive acts only occur when something from outside threatens the survival of the whole organism, or if a part of the organism turns against it.
However. We are forgeting human nature as such. Never satisfied with what it has. Always needs more. Greed is a part of a human. But also a desire to survive is a part of our instincts.
In order to survive animals also form groups and packs. There for i would say it is not meant "just for humans" as such.
The key force common to all civilisations was warfare.That is true.
The theory is that only the fear of war could motivate people to give up the simple life and form complex societies.
To prove it, archaeologists still had to find a city from that very first stage of civilisation.
So here is an interesting link : http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/
Look I dont mean to be an ass.. but might I suggest not posting a wall of text but offering a topic.. and then using those arguments because just reading a wall of text is 1) very boring and 2) takes forever to fully criticize
Theres a reason why it is called an endless waltz.. You kept citing history.. but you didnt really touch the subject of war, peace, revolution.
If humanity truly worked towards a singular goal.. then BY GOD we would have achieved anything that you could possibly imagine now.. but the world doesnt work like that... IF history teaches us anything its that...
But it also teaches us.. Revolution is the main factor that advances our race. We all know Peace leads to revolution which leads to war and ultimately peace again.
Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity. It is impossible and it is unnecessary. I know this is going to seem... very harsh but It isnt truly a war unless there has been revolution most of the things that pass as wars.. are INTENTLY misnamed.. biggest example is the war against terror. Why is that an important one? simple There is peace... Revolutionists or..TERRORISTScome along and then theres war.
Most CLAIMED WARS dont even pass as anything more then a CRISIS. But I digress... Peace costs nothing.. less than nothing.. Peace leads to complacency.. it leads to gluttony. It is.. for humanity as a race... the least viable way to to advance..
Since we have nothing better. This is the system. I wish there was something better but there isnt.
Oh and im sorry There is a way... a global threat that forces everyone to band together and stand against a common non human enemy.
While true he left out revolution as a cause to advance.. which is why I bring it up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian%27s_fallacy
You know what.. I am gonna start listing fallacies with every argument or post people present from now on. Which means their argument or post will be stripped to only the parts that are not subject to that fallacy.. well atleast if I argue a point against the person in question.