stop buying shit from government.
/government ruined
/government ruined
Problem is
they are not selling much
only sucking
They're selling permits to exercise fundamental human rights, not to mention unlimited packs of lies.
Topic: Debate: Mutually Assured Destruction is the only solution to world peace. (Read 2128 times)
September 24, 2012, 05:46:06 PM
Problem is
they are not selling much
only sucking
They're selling permits to exercise fundamental human rights, not to mention unlimited packs of lies.
September 24, 2012, 04:57:26 PM
stop buying shit from government.
/government ruined
/government ruined
Problem is
they are not selling much
only sucking
September 24, 2012, 03:00:23 PM
stop buying shit from government.
/government ruined
/government ruined
September 24, 2012, 02:44:39 PM
stop buying shit from walmart.
/government ruined
/government ruined
September 24, 2012, 12:01:26 PM
Doesn't matter how much free trade or AIs you have, if you give some kids some guns and tell them it's OK to shoot some people, guess what's gonna happen.
This?
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/81632201/
September 24, 2012, 11:52:51 AM
Something else to add to these good ideas:
--> Some basic recognition of human psychology.
If we keep putting people in situations that we know people are likely to make war, we will continue to have war.
If we recognize these conditions and can keep in mind the strengths and weaknesses of human psyche, we will approach life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Doesn't matter how much free trade or AIs you have, if you give some kids some guns and tell them it's OK to shoot some people, guess what's gonna happen.
--> Some basic recognition of human psychology.
If we keep putting people in situations that we know people are likely to make war, we will continue to have war.
If we recognize these conditions and can keep in mind the strengths and weaknesses of human psyche, we will approach life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Doesn't matter how much free trade or AIs you have, if you give some kids some guns and tell them it's OK to shoot some people, guess what's gonna happen.
September 24, 2012, 05:48:18 AM
Recycling and renewable energy will destroy governments?
Recycling, renewable energy, small-scale manufacturing, effective robotics, open source intellectual property, the internet, strong cryptography, and mutually-assured destruction for any authority who transgresses any of the above. That will bring peace. Anything less will lead to war.
September 24, 2012, 05:24:38 AM
the alternative to war is recycling and renewable energy. they take away the primary reason for war.
Recycling and renewable energy will destroy governments?
September 24, 2012, 05:19:05 AM
the alternative to war is recycling and renewable energy. they take away the primary reason for war.
September 23, 2012, 08:44:05 PM
War is about power and in this day and age power can't just be silenced. Power changes from one form to another now, the alternative to war is trade.
Exactly.
September 22, 2012, 05:48:57 PM
I say Mutually Assured Destruction and a diverse set of small competing forces is the answer. Reduce the size of conflict to nearly a local level and you will have something that resembles peace: Only small conflicts with little damage.
Anybody want to debate this? Is anybody a proponent of total submission to one empowered world government?
Mutually Assured Destruction sounds like VHEMT or Church of Euthanasia to me.
September 21, 2012, 11:22:57 PM
There are a few problems with this.
The first problem is that there are too many people who think they have god on their side. They don't care about dying, because they think there is something waiting for them beyond death. And they don't care about the carnage, because any atrocity can be justified by calling it the will of god.
The second problem is that some people just want to watch the world burn and some people just want humans to stop existing. The church of Euthanasia for example.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Euthanasia. There are many other extremists who hold a similar position.
The problem is that as the rate of technological progress increases and information becomes more available, it becomes easier and easier for a few wackjobs to seriously threaten the human population using various means such as desinger virus or nuclear power. There are probably a lot of private labs in world who have the materials and personnel necessary to design a virus that could serious threaten the human population.
I don't think such weapons make humanity safer. The threat of total extinction is increased because of them. They might encourage peace but they raise the stakes to such an extent their benefit is not worth the risk that they introduce.
These are all great points but how do we prevent greater weapons without using more weapons? Shouldn't people adapt to greater threats as opposed to trying to eradicate them while making them more stronger? The first problem is that there are too many people who think they have god on their side. They don't care about dying, because they think there is something waiting for them beyond death. And they don't care about the carnage, because any atrocity can be justified by calling it the will of god.
The second problem is that some people just want to watch the world burn and some people just want humans to stop existing. The church of Euthanasia for example.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Euthanasia. There are many other extremists who hold a similar position.
The problem is that as the rate of technological progress increases and information becomes more available, it becomes easier and easier for a few wackjobs to seriously threaten the human population using various means such as desinger virus or nuclear power. There are probably a lot of private labs in world who have the materials and personnel necessary to design a virus that could serious threaten the human population.
I don't think such weapons make humanity safer. The threat of total extinction is increased because of them. They might encourage peace but they raise the stakes to such an extent their benefit is not worth the risk that they introduce.
I mean, is there a solution here?
September 21, 2012, 11:10:24 PM
There are a few problems with this.
The first problem is that there are too many people who think they have god on their side. They don't care about dying, because they think there is something waiting for them beyond death. And they don't care about the carnage, because any atrocity can be justified by calling it the will of god.
The second problem is that some people just want to watch the world burn and some people just want humans to stop existing. The church of Euthanasia for example.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Euthanasia. There are many other extremists who hold a similar position.
The problem is that as the rate of technological progress increases and information becomes more available, it becomes easier and easier for a few wackjobs to seriously threaten the human population using various means such as desinger virus or nuclear power. There are probably a lot of private labs in world who have the materials and personnel necessary to design a virus that could serious threaten the human population.
I don't think such weapons make humanity safer. The threat of total extinction is increased because of them. They might encourage peace but they raise the stakes to such an extent their benefit is not worth the risk that they introduce.
The first problem is that there are too many people who think they have god on their side. They don't care about dying, because they think there is something waiting for them beyond death. And they don't care about the carnage, because any atrocity can be justified by calling it the will of god.
The second problem is that some people just want to watch the world burn and some people just want humans to stop existing. The church of Euthanasia for example.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Euthanasia. There are many other extremists who hold a similar position.
The problem is that as the rate of technological progress increases and information becomes more available, it becomes easier and easier for a few wackjobs to seriously threaten the human population using various means such as desinger virus or nuclear power. There are probably a lot of private labs in world who have the materials and personnel necessary to design a virus that could serious threaten the human population.
I don't think such weapons make humanity safer. The threat of total extinction is increased because of them. They might encourage peace but they raise the stakes to such an extent their benefit is not worth the risk that they introduce.
September 21, 2012, 11:02:11 PM
Free trade is the solution to world peace.
Quote from: Frederic Bastiat
When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.
How do you get rid of closed borders, Myrkul? Buy buying them out with the only money they control and accept?
The gun and security market has its place and that needs to be more open and "free" than anything.
Agreed. A free market in security is probably the most important step to peace. All of these regional monopolies are wrecking it for the rest of us.
September 21, 2012, 10:54:41 PM
AI will bring world peace. Forget the movie stuff. Man will colonize the stars with the help of our silicone children masters.
Fixed.
And no, Free trade is the solution to world peace.
Quote from: Frederic Bastiat
When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.
How do you get rid of closed borders, Myrkul? By buying them out with the only money they control and accept?
The gun and security market has its place and that needs to be more open and "free" than anything.
September 21, 2012, 10:51:51 PM
AI will bring world peace. Forget the movie stuff. Man will colonize the stars with the help of our silicone children masters.
Fixed.
And no, Free trade is the solution to world peace.
Quote from: Frederic Bastiat
When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.
September 21, 2012, 10:45:25 PM
AI will bring world peace. Forget the movie stuff. Man will colonize the stars with the help of our silicone children.
September 21, 2012, 10:42:09 PM
How else can one bring peace to the world outside of mass evolution of the human genome?
How can one take away all capabilities of force without using force to disarm and force conformity to peace? How can one accomplish mass disarmament without equal resistance to the cause?
I say Mutually Assured Destruction and a diverse set of small competing forces is the answer. Reduce the size of conflict to nearly a local level and you will have something that resembles peace: Only small conflicts with little damage.
Anybody want to debate this? Is anybody a proponent of total submission to one empowered world government?
How can one take away all capabilities of force without using force to disarm and force conformity to peace? How can one accomplish mass disarmament without equal resistance to the cause?
I say Mutually Assured Destruction and a diverse set of small competing forces is the answer. Reduce the size of conflict to nearly a local level and you will have something that resembles peace: Only small conflicts with little damage.
Anybody want to debate this? Is anybody a proponent of total submission to one empowered world government?
Jump to: