IT'S JUST A RIDE...

[Manji187]

Life sucks and then you die. Thats basically it. There will never be a world at peace, there will never be a time when the military and weapons become obsolete, there will never be a time when all humans are viewed as one, there will never be a time when all humas are equal, there will never be a time when people stop thinking about themselves and start to think only of others, and there will never be a time when the world is turned into a paradise.
Why? Because we humans are, by nature, selfish. We think of ourselves and our own profit first and foremost. Even those who help others do it because it makes them feel good about themselves. They do it out of empathy and compassion - but they also do it because if they dont theyll hate themselves and thus they take care of themselves before anyone else, just as the one who doesnt help anyone.

What Im saying is; The world is shit, humans are shit, everything is shit. You do what you can to get by in a world that will crush you like an ant the minuet you let it.

Wow...that's a lot of "never". Only there is one thing: human beings can't predict shit.

Here's a thought experiment: suppose you had a time machine and you could travel back in time to interview people on their views/ beliefs.

The Athenians (from say 400 BC) would tell you slavery would never be abolished and that the rightful place (in fact the only place) of a woman is inside the house. Fast forward to say 1500 AD and a "witchhunter" would tell you witches will be around forever so there will always be a need for a man like him. Forward again to say 1800 AD in the Southern states in the US. A plantation owner would probably laugh his ass off if you told him the descendants of his workers would one day have equal rights and that an African American would be president one day.

What I am saying is, history (or the passage of time) tends to prove us wrong all the time. In essence, "never" is a word that should never be used when discussing such things.

We've come a long way and who knows where we'll be 200, 500, 2000 years from now.

 

[Bakuryukun]

Here's the way the world works, though. If we don't spend money on weapons and defense, we'll be conquered by those who do. Seriously, go fire up a copy of Civilization, and just don't build any armies. Your populations will revolt, and you'll have foreign nations stomping all over you like a spider in a mosh pit. That's reality.

Not if every nation would not do it, which is this guy's point.

So if things were perfect, than they would be perfect. I appreciate the line of thinking that this guy is trying to inspire, but part of me hates things like this, pretty words are nice, but in the end it's not a plan, and that's what ACTUAL peace requires. Carefully laid plans and relationships with others. Anybody can say "Man, we should stop fighting each other, wars are pretty bad overall" but that doesn't actually DO anything, it just makes people FEEL like they did something because they agree with the sentiment. But if you ask these same people, how we would go about stopping every war and conflict on earth, they don't know, and nobody really does because in the end humanity and life IS more complex than a ride, and saying that it isn't is just misplaced naivety that will never do anything for anyone save make them feel better about the world for 5 minutes, all dressed up as "pretty poetry pandering to the people".

 

[IBlackKiteI]

The way I see it, the world is not going to get much better within our lifetimes.
Humanity is just incapable of being anything other than selfish, scummy, bastard coated bastards with bastard coated filling, to quote Dr Cox.

Much as I love Bill Hicks I consider him, based on his acts,...overly optimistic or something.

So while its ok to dream, just don't think we could make the perfect reality or anything anytime soon.

Also, wanna know a big example of the world sucking so much?
Bill Hicks died at the age of 32

Justice and good does not exist.

THE END

 

[Cowabungaa]

Here's the way the world works, though. If we don't spend money on weapons and defense, we'll be conquered by those who do. Seriously, go fire up a copy of Civilization, and just don't build any armies. Your populations will revolt, and you'll have foreign nations stomping all over you like a spider in a mosh pit. That's reality.

Not if every nation would not do it, which is this guy's point.

So if things were perfect, than they would be perfect. I appreciate the line of thinking that this guy is trying to inspire, but part of me hates things like this, pretty words are nice, but in the end it's not a plan, and that's what ACTUAL peace requires. Carefully laid plans and relationships with others. Anybody can say "Man, we should stop fighting each other, wars are pretty bad overall" but that doesn't actually DO anything, it just makes people FEEL like they did something because they agree with the sentiment. But if you ask these same people, how we would go about stopping every war and conflict on earth, they don't know, and nobody really does because in the end humanity and life IS more complex than a ride, and saying that it isn't is just misplaced naivety that will never do anything for anyone save make them feel better about the world for 5 minutes, all dressed up as "pretty poetry pandering to the people".

*points at the text right below that one line he wrote*

Preaching for the choir my friend. Sure he's right (because life just is, we only make it serious and whatnot because we work like that), but humans as critters just don't operate that way. It's like asking ants to suddenly employ free market systems. They're just not hard-wired to be like that.

Question is, of course, could we with our intellect and relatively large degree of self-awareness change that about ourselves?

 

[Manji187]

Preaching for the choir my friend. Sure he's right (because life just is, we only make it serious and whatnot because we work like that), but humans as critters just don't operate that way. It's like asking ants to suddenly employ free market systems. They're just not hard-wired to be like that.

Question is, of course, could we with our intellect and relatively large degree of self-awareness change that about ourselves?

A lot of so-called "hard-wiring" in human beings is nothing but conditioning; learned beliefs. Change the system and future generations (now with better beliefs) will laugh at how barbaric/ stupid we were. Isn't that what we're doing with former generations? You know....the crusaders, witchhunters, slave owners. Isn't it a fallacy to think that something will last forever/ never change?

Although we may not live to see it....history will prove us wrong...as it has done time and again.

Take Obama for instance. An African American as President of the United States. Who would've thought that possible in 1800...in the southern pro-slavery States. Hell in 1900 nobody would've believed you if you told em...people wouldn't have believed you in the time of Martin Luther King (1960s). What can I say....something is weird...absurd...unlikely....until it is not.

 

[thylasos]

Bill Hicks was an immensely intelligent and funny guy, and I agree entirely with his sentiments.

 

[Spacewolf]

Weapons manufactoring is a good source of tech advancement after all comercial sectors are happy with what works but the military is always looking for the next advancement to be made that can give the an edge

 

[Wicky_42]

Here's the way the world works, though. If we don't spend money on weapons and defense, we'll be conquered by those who do. Seriously, go fire up a copy of Civilization, and just don't build any armies. Your populations will revolt, and you'll have foreign nations stomping all over you like a spider in a mosh pit. That's reality.

...
No, Civ's a GAME, the opposite of reality To take a contextural counterpoint, try and win the Sims with military force. Oh look, games aren't an analogy for reality.

Times change, people can change, Nations can change. It we as a species don't grow beyond 'pointiest stick wins' then we're fucked, because what's the point of loads of pointy sticks if you don't get to stick 'em into someone once in a while?

If the same funding that's given to the military was put into technological development I doubt there'd be even an inkling of an energy crisis, cancer would be gone, we'd be colonising space and the future would be golden. Unless we were all killed by someone else with pointy sticks and no foresight.

 

[DrOswald]

The ideal situation is to have no weapons, swords to plowshares and all that, but the simple fact is that weapons are necessary. I would even say that weapons, and the research to create increasingly effective weapons, are a necessity for eventual world peace.

The current state of the world is one of potential wars and actual wars. This cannot be wished away or ignored. Every country in the world has many enemies that would destroy it if they had half the chance. If a peace loving country does not defend itself, or have allies to help defend it, they will be destroyed by a more war like people. The peaceful are replaced by the violent and the world has taken a step away from a lasting peace.

So long as there are those who would start wars, weapons are vital if we are to ever have a chance at world peace. But we must combine our preparation for war with efforts to promote peace. This is where I believe the true problem is, not enough efforts toward lasting peace.

In other words, I believe people who complain about how much we spend on weapons and armies are complaining about a symptom. We must instead direct our efforts at curing the disease.

 

[Dorkamongus]

Take Obama for instance. An African American as President of the United States. Who would've thought that possible in 1800...in the southern pro-slavery States. Hell in 1900 nobody would've believed you if you told em...people wouldn't have believed you in the time of Martin Luther King (1960s). What can I say....something is weird...absurd...unlikely....until it is not.

Kind of unrelated to this whole thread, but I figured I might as well point it out SOMEWHERE. I think it's a little... strange that people consider Obama's greatest achievement as president is the fact that he is black... and was elected. Or maybe it's not even his own achievement, but "America's" achievement. I mean, Isn't that just a little racist? In a different way than what people normally say about racism, but racist nonetheless. Now don't get me wrong or anything, I believe that so long as we have the words to describe the differences, there will always be racism. I just think it's kind of strange that people seem to be so critical of Obama personally, but point to him for the rest of the world and shout out "See this? We elected a Black President!!! Don't we just live up to our beliefs of equality and justice for all?"

Now, none of this is directed to you, but I just don't really get how people can talk about "True equality" in one sentence, then talk about our black president in the next. If we were really equal, would we even have to use his skin color to describe him? Or possibly a future president's gender? I mean, we've never once referred to all of the presidents before him as our "white" presidents. Wouldn't we instead focus on their merits and how they perform their jobs?

 

[DrOswald]

Take Obama for instance. An African American as President of the United States. Who would've thought that possible in 1800...in the southern pro-slavery States. Hell in 1900 nobody would've believed you if you told em...people wouldn't have believed you in the time of Martin Luther King (1960s). What can I say....something is weird...absurd...unlikely....until it is not.

Kind of unrelated to this whole thread, but I figured I might as well point it out SOMEWHERE. I think it's a little... strange that people consider Obama's greatest achievement as president is the fact that he is black... and was elected. Or maybe it's not even his own achievement, but "America's" achievement. I mean, Isn't that just a little racist? In a different way than what people normally say about racism, but racist nonetheless. Now don't get me wrong or anything, I believe that so long as we have the words to describe the differences, there will always be racism. I just think it's kind of strange that people seem to be so critical of Obama personally, but point to him for the rest of the world and shout out "See this? We elected a Black President!!! Don't we just live up to our beliefs of equality and justice for all?"

Now, none of this is directed to you, but I just don't really get how people can talk about "True equality" in one sentence, then talk about our black president in the next. If we were really equal, would we even have to use his skin color to describe him? Or possibly a future president's gender? I mean, we've never once referred to all of the presidents before him as our "white" presidents. Wouldn't we instead focus on their merits and how they perform their jobs?

A lack of racism doesn't mean we ignore skin color. In an ideal world, skin color would be similar in concept to hair color. Not important, but it is a thing. Also, everyone talks about Obama as the black president because it is an important indicator of the progress we have made as a society. It is not racist to say a man is black (unless someone updated what isn't PC while I wasn't looking) but it is racist to not elect a man because he is black.

To bring this all around to the OP, the increasing tolerance of societies like the U.S.A. and other socially advanced societies is a major step to getting rid of the necessity or weapons and armies. This is the kind of thing we need to promote.

 

[Dorkamongus]

A lack of racism doesn't mean we ignore skin color. In an ideal world, skin color would be similar in concept to hair color. Not important, but it is a thing. Also, everyone talks about Obama as the black president because it is an important indicator of the progress we have made as a society. It is not racist to say a man is black (unless someone updated what isn't PC while I wasn't looking) but it is racist to not elect a man because he is black.

To bring this all around to the OP, the increasing tolerance of societies like the U.S.A. and other socially advanced societies is a major step to getting rid of the necessity or weapons and armies. This is the kind of thing we need to promote.

FYI: I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing, because I think it's fun, and I learn more.

Anyways, I suppose my personal definition of racism is different from what the dictionary says. I say racism is a noticing of visible differences, and using those differences to promote or put down whichever race has those differences. By promote, I mean that, in the case of presidents, electing a black president because he's black is unfair to all of the white presidents who were also running. Electing him because he was the best and most popular, WITHOUT bringing skin color into the bargain, would not be racist in my reasoning.

Sadly enough, I've seen people discriminate against people about their hair color as well... but how would you even define that? Hairest? Haircist? (Just joking)

 

[Manji187]

So long as there are those who would start wars, weapons are vital if we are to ever have a chance at world peace. But we must combine our preparation for war with efforts to promote peace. This is where I believe the true problem is, not enough efforts toward lasting peace.

In other words, I believe people who complain about how much we spend on weapons and armies are complaining about a symptom. We must instead direct our efforts at curing the disease.

Well...war isn't only a political game...that's just one aspect of it (propaganda/ fear mongering/ creation of an Enemy). War is also big business. According to retired U.S. Marine Major General Smedley D. Butler:

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

You are right that it's a symptom. It's the symptom of a fundamentally sick mind...a mind willing to destroy the lives of human beings to satisfy its love of money.

 

[DrOswald]

So long as there are those who would start wars, weapons are vital if we are to ever have a chance at world peace. But we must combine our preparation for war with efforts to promote peace. This is where I believe the true problem is, not enough efforts toward lasting peace.

In other words, I believe people who complain about how much we spend on weapons and armies are complaining about a symptom. We must instead direct our efforts at curing the disease.

Well...war isn't only a political game...that's just one aspect of it (propaganda/ fear mongering/ creation of an Enemy). War is also big business. According to retired U.S. Marine Major General Smedley D. Butler:

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

You are right that it's a symptom. It's the symptom of a fundamentally sick mind...a mind willing to destroy the lives of human beings to satisfy its love of money.

I can agree to that, but I do not believe that this really matters to the discussion at hand. If war is a racket, big business, then it stands to reason that the people who start the wars are the ones who believe they can get the most out of it, at least in most cases. There are certainly a cases where was began because of politics, racism, or just plain stupidity. But for the sake of the current discussion, wars of profit are started when greed overcomes the disdain of war. It only takes one side to start a war, and the other side needs the armies and the weapons to end the war if someone comes knocking at their door. We are back at square one, the need of military as a deterrent of war.

The only way we could ever get rid of the need of weapons and armies is to eliminate the threat of war. Disarmament does not accomplish this goal. It paints a massive target on the now militarily weak society. And for the reasons I explained previously, we do not want the peace loving to lose wars.

 

[Korak the Mad]

It's true, so very true.
The world is a paranoid place, all money goes to war and death.
Those who wish to make it better, and usually silienced or ignored.

 

[C14N]

Well if you can agree to get everybody in he world to stop fighting, then great, we won't need weapons. Looking at the US as an outsider I can see that as bad as spending billions on the military is, you guys need to do it. You simply could not depend on all the other countries to not invade. Even if all countries of the world were magically disarmed overnight, human being instinctively want more power and someone will want to take over somewhere else by force.

Besides that, military spending has helped to invent and develop many aspects of science and technology. Rockets, airplanes, GPS, the internet, computers, communications etc. all benefited from military spending.

I do think the world will get less militant but it won't get noticeably better in our lifetime. If we look to the developed (basically the northern hemisphere), we all get along now. Communications and such make war much less likely between two fully developed nations and even though the likes of say America and Russia might still seem like rivals, a war would be completely absurd now. Propaganda couldn't happen again the way it did during WW2 to turn an entire nation against a neighbouring one. Whether you like the EU or not, you have to admit that it provides a lot of security for Europe, like there had never been before.

No I would say once the rest of the world manages to catch up in terms of things like education, health, technology and infrastructure, the world will start getting along better and war will become less frequent. They will catch up too. The likes of Brazil and China might seem poor now but they're already most of the way there and other developing countries will follow.