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

  • NewDark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Torres@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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

      • T156@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Although it did take them at least one apocalypse, alien intervention, and 200 - 300 years before they actually got around to it.

    • alokir@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      That would probably create more reasons for people/groups to go to war with each other than it eliminates.

    • Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      And who decides who has to produce those goods for everyone? Also who decides who gets how much? … Probably some kind of war. :)

      • Hangry @lm.helilot.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • eatthecake@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          What if we genetically engineered ourselves to make beans taste like lasagna and kindness feel as satisfying as getting a promotion?

          • Hangry @lm.helilot.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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?

          • Hangry @lm.helilot.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Eugenics is often conflated with “selective breeding”, which is pretty justified, given all the derives from the twentieth century.
            Today, whether we should include CRISPR and so under the umbrella of eugenics is still open for debate.
            The term of Transhumanism may be more relevant in this specific topic, as for Wikipedia’s definition,

            Transhumanism is a philosophical and intellectual movement which advocates the enhancement of the human condition by developing and making widely available sophisticated technologies that can greatly enhance longevity and cognition.

            On a personal note I think that all in all, defining what are the " good genes to add, remove, or keep" in the human pool is definitely a delicate matter, 100% biased by our cultural differences and steps fully in the endless philosophical field.

  • Yolk@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

    • szczur@kbin.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It certainly is a way… although I don’t feel like we would greatly benefit from it!

      • XTL@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s moving the goal posts. Though killing everyone might fall under the “unreasonable” part of the question.

  • T156@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • wabafee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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: Or 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.

  • xarvh@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Let’s first address all the “nature” and “biological” not-really-true claims.

    The Batek people of Malaysia are so averse of killing other humans that refuse to do it even when threatened with slavery https://peacefulsocieties.uncg.edu/societies/batek/

    So, war is cultural, not biological.

    Second, why do we do war?

    At first glance, is for scarce resources, for survival.

    But look at the modern wars. Are they for survival? Are they for resources that we need to survive?
    No they are not.
    They are for power.

    But whose power?
    The power of those who actually have to fight and die?
    Certainly not.

    The power of the rulers, who are greedy for more power.

    Most people need to be scared into going to war, need to be convinced that they are defending their families and their “people”.

    This is why rulers work very hard to build national identities, the good “us” vs the evil “them”.

    Here we need three things:

    1. We need a culture that knows how to recognize those greedy for power, those with a desire to dominate, and see them as the threat to freedom that they are, ie some sort of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leveling_mechanism
      There are several cultures that do that, but it has to be a deliberate and conscious thing.

    2. We need to rethink our identities, national and not, because those identities are used to define the “other” that is ok to harm and kill.
      A way to do this is to make sure that people who want to travel and visit other groups can do so easily: this will help the various groups understand and humanize each other.

    3. We need a culture that stresses the importance of non-violent conflict resolution.
      Because if all you know is violence, then that’s what you will use.

    I mean, easier said than done of course, but I think that knowing the direction makes it easier to reach it.

    For further reading on the subject, I would recommend Bob Altemeyer’s “The Authoritarians” and Graeber & Wengrow’s “The Dawn of Everything” from the top of my head.

        • Kaldo@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          If I’m interpreting it correctly he’s using that example to say war isn’t inherently part of human nature but rather a result of culture (aka environment and society). I’m saying the example could also go to show that the reason that tribe abhors violence is because of their unusual society going against nature.

  • Niello@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    There is this 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 community 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.

  • bstix@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

      • bstix@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

  • KluEvo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

  • shandrakor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Since you stipulated our species, to me, the answer is an external threat to the whole. Aliens, higher or lower dimensional creatures, cryptids, flame unicorns sharting lava, even angels or demons if we want to get real wild.

    Even just the threat of an existential terror such as these and probably a lot I missed, (feel free to add to the list! Feed me your existential threats!) has the potential to bring the species together to fight on a larger scale.

    However this doesn’t eliminate war just moves the focus. So I’m not sure if I’ve answered your question or not but I had fun doing it!

    • whenigrowup356@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I feel like the cultural/political responses to both global warming and COVID-19 have shaken my faith in this sort-of Watchmen scenario working out. No matter how universal the threat, seems like some groups will always find an angle to work that cuts against the “greater good.”