Topic: Is Günter Grass right? Heading into WW3? (Read 785 times)

Thanks for the link. Looks like a reasonable dude.

We should identify the gene that makes people power hungry and then euthanize every child that carries it. 

You start with an untruth then move on to an irrelevancy.

1) It would be technologically easy and financially trivial to put several hundred people on Mars or the moon. Governments are semi wisely letting the market, private enterprise, take the first steps, but certain big costly steps should be taken first by government. The near solar system for now is easily won and an important prize.

2) Problems people have with physics has nothing to do with anything. Does the fact that your postman is a bad cook prevent you from eating at a restaurant? Or does it prevent him for that matter? Not everyone needs to know physics.

----

Anyway the point I meant to make is that humans are naturally ambitious but each has his or her own ambition. If my favorite is science and yours is conquering, you may have ruled the roost til now. But that long era is over. Look at the panic governments show for 'lone wolves'. That panic should be a thousand times greater. I am neither especially smart nor especially hostile toward any entity but even simple me could make science useful were it necessary.

It simply is not possible for governments to continue 'conquering' etc unless science is hidden from the masses.

Pick a side.

Douglas Adams aired this idea in his Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe - the "B" Ark:

http://www.geoffwilkins.net/fragments/Adams.htm


Adams should have added politicians and EvilPanda to the list...  

I doubt it's possible; particularly in America, people are sick enough of the middle east as it is, the economy is in the shitter, war will just make everyone that much poorer due to central planning being wealth consuming more than producing.  Drafts were incredibly unpopular back then, they'll be abysmally unpopular today with so much interconnectivity between not just people in the same nation, but with many people in other nations as well.  Many of us are great friends with people we've never met IRL and who live in completely different parts of the world; to undo all of these relationships in an attempt for a pointless global war would immediately cause current institutions to be overthrown, and they know this, which is why they resort to a TON of secrecy--secret "proxy" wars, secret courts, secret laws (remember how many times they tried controlling the web with SOPA and PIPA, painting them to seem beneficial?); they're scared to do things openly knowing a revolution is right on their doorsteps, which is why people like Assange and Snowden are so devastating to them; a secret is no good if it's out in the open.  One might think every government is set in stone and absolutely necessary to security (McDonalds also wants you to know their burgers are absolutely vital to your hunger satisfaction, but they haven't been quite as successful in this as modern government,) but clearly this was not the case for so many failed governments of the past, and will not be the case moving forward.  It's just a reality people must accept: no government is safe from tyranny, no tyrants are safe from revolution, and if it comes down to protecting a tyrant and survival, they choose survival.  There are some obvious exceptions: North Korea is completely tyrannical, but the people are totally dependent on the state for survival, so they pick survival, which means supporting a tyrant.  Most nations aren't on this level of dependency on the state, and it's why anyone who sees this for what it is gets frightened when they see people in so-called free countries who are totally dependent on the state for their survival; things like welfare and base income and whatnot.  They're a gateway to totalitarianism, nobody would want it otherwise.  You think someone getting a free paycheck from their government is going to want them to go away?  They're among the most patriotic of any other.

We've hit a point in global connectivity, dependency and consciousness which cannot be undone without inciting a revolution (the ultimate "Game Over" for a regime) or to slowly, law by law, enslave the masses into total dependency (the North Korean state), the latter of which they've been hard at work making a reality, primarily through fear of some generic force of evil called "terrorists", now called "ISIS".  (You're several times more likely to die from a cop than from a terrorist, btw.)  I predict another 9/11 type of event to occur in the next American presidency (odds of this increasing if it's Hillary, since she's basically another Bush with the military industrial complex in her pocket, so of course they wanna make some big bucks producing military goods as always), undoubtedly performed by ISIS by some means or another, which may succeed in rallying the people into more wartime planning, which will further siphon freedom away in favor of central gov control; dependencies of the state are far more likely to do all the state wants, even at their own detriment, so the more dependencies there are, the better off you'll be as a government gearing up for the chopping block.  It's highly unlikely there will ever be another global war; no matter how badly the military producers want the business, people just aren't going to put up with that nowadays.  The only wars most people are going to see from now is them vs. their freedom-hungry governments and whatever remaining disillusioned followers they have left at their disposal.

Yes, we are. We are meant to destroy ourselves, just look what we did to so many animal species and to ourselves in the previous wars.
Europe is boiling right now and if the war starts it will probably start in Russia. I can tell you that the Eastern border of the EU is poor, unemployed and feels threatened by the Russians and they aren't even trying to ease the tension.

I only wish that were true. Unfortunately for us dwellers in the technologically humble realm of 2015, extra-planetary colonization is a class two impossibility. Meaning it's not going to happen this century, and it's probably not going to happen within the next 300 years either.



The problem is that space is a whole lot bigger than we think it is. The universe is so vast that our primate brains are incapable of fathoming even the distance between neighboring galaxies. This site should help provide some insight on that phenomenon.
Should Faster Than Light travel prove to be an impossibility - and this is not at all unlikely - we may never be able to colonize another planet. We need to prepare for that outcome by protecting the long term viability of Earth, our only home.

Related recommended reading:





 

"In space no one can hear your lies!"


WWIII might come, but it will be swift when it does and possibly affect the 'western' world very little. Like the wars in Iraq and Africa. Where a lot of world wide troops are sent to bring 'peace'. What does define a world war? We will probably read it in the papers and have late night tv sessions soaking up the news, that being our only personal involvement.

Eject totalitarian sociopathic fucks into space? Yes!

You seem to make some interesting points. Superwars are really not possible anymore the way they were 70 years ago. It is now a tightrope walk for countries to avoid backyard designer nukes and similar wmds.

It is almost necessary to stop teaching basic literacy and science in order to prevent catastrophe breaking out. Imagine if the people in Tibet or Yemen or Congo or wherever had widespread expertise in the sciences.

Mankind will be saved only by space travel. There is no room left on earth for both educated people and ambitious politicians. Space is the answer.

Global revolution or more of the same, the choice is ours. Yes, we are already on the road to World War III.  But I don't think the political will is there anymore, I don't think the people of Earth will tolerate another World War.

Any government involving itself in Super-War now risks totally damning its own legitimacy.

If you prefer Harry Potter, there are a lot of warnings of dark times ahead in those books too - don't take them as entertainment only.

Across the pond, in many of his articles, Paul Craig Roberts echoes the same concerns as Günther:
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/

He was known more for his integrity than his vision. Gunther RIP but sleepwalking is the way.

His literature is beyond my reach, I prefer Harry Potter and comic books 

I respect his opinion though, it would fit right in, with so many political leaders being psychopaths and looking for a reset button for the fiat money debt pyramid game...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/11535466/Gunter-Grass-we-are-sleepwalking-into-world-war.html

is he right?