Can modern world even function when most people are only out there for themselves?

[chenda]

@chenda - also, what do you admire in people who refuse to fight? In most cases, they do it out of self-interest - to avoid being harmed in the fighting.

I think that's an entirely admirable goal. Many years ago I met an nurse who had worked in a burns unit during ww2. Hearing her stories were enough to convince me of the abomination of war.

Jesus very clearly taught a pacifist message. Those who refuse to fight are truly walking in the path of Christ. Harry Browne did as well. He wrote an essay called 'the war racket'.

[white belt]

The romans understood it 2000 years ago
Si vis pacem, para bellum

Unfortunately us in Europe have grown used to virtue signaling “ohh we don’t do that” while what we’re doing is simply having someone else do the dirty work.

Think about pollution (moving polluting activities to Asia) or war (free riding on the USA).

Pretty much this. It wasn't long ago that NATO countries wouldn't even meet their agreed-upon defense spending mandates. Violence is part of life; you either participate in it yourself or you outsource it. Most of us reading this outsource it to governments, but in less stable regions you might outsource it to a non-government entity whether that be a private company, drug/warlord, or religious group.

Cat Stevens said at Glastonbury this year 'I've been campaigning against war since the 1960s, but war continues. My solution? Lock all the leaders up in London zoo'

I find it ironic that the entire Boomer peace movement was built on the back of literally millions who died in WW2. Something something Howe's Fourth Turning. Would Glastonbury festival even exist if the USA hadn't entered WW2? If we look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs, pacificism is only a viable strategy when physiological and safety needs are met. How many pacifists are there in Myanmar, Syria, South Sudan, and Ethiopia right now? Why is it that the first place refugees try to flee to are countries under the powerful NATO umbrella?

Back to the OP, I do think prosperity has made people more selfish. Or at least, obligations to family and community have been eroded by obligations to consumerism. People are probably still the same level of selfish, but wealth has allowed individuals to isolate themselves in ways that previously would've only been available to elites. We've talked about it before how social networks have been outsourced and replaced by paying for a specialist to do something. However, as the world becomes more crowded and competition over resources increases, it gets harder and harder for the selfish individual to shield themselves from the consequences of their actions. It's also no surprise that the most prosperous countries are most individualistic, while less prosperous countries are more collectivist.

[zbigi]

I find it ironic that the entire Boomer peace movement was built on the back of literally millions who died in WW2.

... as well as very heavy Soviet involvement and infiltration. Below a quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_in ... e_movement :

"The main activity of the World Peace Council (a Soviet front - zbigi) was organizing enormous international peace conferences with thousands in attendance; they condemned western military action, armaments and weapons tests but refrained from criticizing Russian aggression.
Because of the energetic propaganda of the WPC from the late 1940s onwards, with its big conferences and budget from the Soviet Union, some observers saw no difference between a peace activist and a communist."

[chenda]

I find it ironic that the entire Boomer peace movement was built on the back of literally millions who died in WW2.

I don't find that ironic. I find it a perfectly rational response to a series of global catastrophies.

Would Glastonbury festival even exist if the USA hadn't entered WW2?

Nor would it without a dozen other nations. But asked yourself what led to ww2, and what would have happened if the boomer peace movement has existed in 1914 ? War begets war. Violence begets violence.

How many pacifists are there in Myanmar, Syria, South Sudan, and Ethiopia right now?

Millions I would imagine.

[white belt]

I don't find that ironic. I find it a perfectly rational response to a series of global catastrophies.

Nor would it without a dozen other nations. But asked yourself what led to ww2, and what would have happened if the boomer peace movement has existed in 1914 ? War begets war. Violence begets violence.

And yet none of the boomers even witnessed any of that series of global catastrophes since they were babies or not even born yet. Weird that the loudest anti-war proponents were not those who actually sacrificed the most in those conflicts. Not to say there weren't veterans who opposed the war and vouched for peace, just that so much of the peace movement was in direct opposition to the Greatest Generation perspective.

War is generally caused by conflict over resources. Another way to think of war is as a political tool to get other nations/people to do what you want. As long as there are limited resources on the planet, war is inevitable. Saying something like "violence begets violence" violates the principle of deterrence: https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articl ... index.html

[Lemur]

Interesting bit here in that article above

Indeed, many studies about human behavior demonstrate that people who fear to lose something valuable are ready to take greater risks than those who hope to make a gain. In the context of the Falklands War, this means that for the Junta, which was under siege politically, occupying the “Malvinas” was not about a gain, but rather about avoiding losing power. This made them take risks they otherwise would not have dared to take. Rationality – a precondition for a stable deterrence system – had evaporated.

Interesting...I'm well aware of the disposition effect in financial investments...never thought to make the connection to war. Something something Art of War about not backing someone into a corner.

[zbigi]

No doubt it was partially motivated by internal politics (as is any decision in any state), but the willingness to fight hard for a worthless piece of rock also makes sense from deterrence perspective. If you roll over and just give the aggressor what they want, they'll just come wanting more the next time (if not them, then another agressor). You have to make yourself a pain in the butt for the aggressor, even if he's clearly stronger - then hopefully he'll rationally calculate that bothering you is not worth it. Animals understand it, prisoners understand it, but politicians sometimes pretend they don't - see the disgraceful attempts at Hitler appeasment in late 1930s (motivated in part by loony pacifist labor politicians in the UK, which supported appeasing Hitler and " abolition of national armaments" (!)).

[Jean]

The pax americana is so peacefull , because usa are at the same time the most powerfull human entity to ever exist on this planet, and they ask relatively little for their protection. They might sometimes be unfair, but everyone knows that a world where china or russia plays world police would be much worse.
They did not win ww2 by themselves, but we owe them the peace that followed. And the only way to disagree is to become at the sametime more powerfull and nicer to our neighbourghs.

[chenda]

@whitebelt - but they did live during other wars and the constant threat of nuclear war.

@zbigi - The Labour party never officially adopted pacifism as a doctrine and by the late 1930s were advocating rearmament. Appeasement was a mistake with hindsight but entirely understandable. What was shameful was the fascists who attempted to emulate Hitler.

@Lemur - yes it's been noted that democracies almost never go to war against one another. The absence of any democratic tradition in Argentina led to a desperate last throw of the dice. That said, it's not hard to argue the liberation of the Falklands from Argentina's occupation ticked every just-war box.

[grundomatic]

I can respect someone that signs up for what they see as a peacekeeper role to keep bullies, bandits, and barbarians from wrecking everyone else’s otherwise peaceful lives. Without their practical contribution, which might include some violence, the world would be a worse place. On a societal level, the strategy of deterrence where we sit on a large pile of guns, grenades, and germs but using them somewhat sparingly is better than the previous strategy of killing or enslaving everyone that isn’t like us.

I can also respect the pacifist that refuses to fight what they see as imperial wars, or that gives also their cloak to the robber demanding their coat. Without such idealism, humanity would never progress. We’ve come a long way from throwing virgins in volcanoes, or from medieval Europe where homicide was much more commonplace than today. This doesn’t happen without someone pointing society in a different direction.

As for me, I’m here for the practical idealism. Hate wars? Reduce your income so you aren’t financing them with your tax money. Starving children make you sad? Stop eating protein inefficient foods, and wasting food in general. I’m half as wasteful as I was pre-ERE, but I’m not anywhere close to where I want to be. If one is worried about the state of the world, I think this is the place to be.

[chenda]

@grundomatic - 100% agree.

[zbigi]

We’ve come a long way from throwing virgins in volcanoes, or from medieval Europe where homicide was much more commonplace than today. This doesn’t happen without someone pointing society in a different direction.

That someone existed already long before middle ages, and his disciples even managed to found what came to be the most powerful institution in Europe. That didn't stop people from killing each other though. The change only came to be with less poverty and better policing.

[chenda]

Christianity quickly became corrupted by violence. But throughout it's history there have been those few who have truly walked in the path of Christ, and being willing to give their lives for it Such as Franz Jägerstätter, an Austrian farmer with a young family who refused to fight for the Nazis. Orchestrated by his countrymen and even members of the church, he went willingly to his death by guillotine, refusing a last minute reprieve for his unwillingness to be complicit in Nazism. The bravery and convictions of such individuals can only humble us all.

[grundomatic]

The change only came to be with less poverty and better policing.

Excellent point! Some posit that in the stages of societal development, the individualist stages provide the technology to execute the values of the previous collectivist stages. Like modernism provided the technology to heal the sick and feed the hungry, but it was traditionalism that told us that is what is worth doing. The protestant work ethic you mentioned in the original post being something like a bridge between the two. But yes, it's ironic that it was modernism (with it's only looking out for oneself) that reduced overall poverty and made life better for many.

[chenda]

There seems to have been a large increase in overtly non violent political movements in the 20th century.

[zbigi]

Pacifism, or more generally - unwillingness to stand up against evil, can have tragic consequences. For example, in September 1939, if France would have attacked Germany (in retaliaton for Germany invading Poland) like it promised Poland eariler that year, there likely would not be a WWII. Soviets would never enter the war as German ally (Stalin specifically waited over two weeks to make sure that France and England will not enter the war, despite their earlier guarantees), and Germany would be mired with local war on two fronts. Instead, France chose peace and was promptly conquered in 1940 anyway. If not for Hitler's insanity (him insisting on conquering UK, and his attack on Soviet Union later), there's a good chance that France's cowardice would mean that a lot of the continental Europe would be speaking German from now on, and would be ruled by murderous regime, perhaps to this day. Instead, Hitler's ambition for global domination brought US into the war, which ultimately led to demise of Nazi regime. But still, even with Hitler's insanity, France's unwillingness to fight in 1939 led to war with tens of millions of victims.

Some background on how France's youth was formed to be pacifists by its schools in a mass manner during 1920s and 1930s:
https://www.tutorhunt.com/resource/16152/

Example quote: "By the mid-1920s, scores of French primary schoolteachers began readily identifying themselves as pacifists, and they sketched out a new mission for the nation's schools: the moral disarmament of France."

[Jean]

@zbigi are you sure about your facts? I think france and uk backed down on their guarantee of czechoslovakia, but entered war when hitler attacked poland, other wise ww2 wouldn't have happened.
Also Hitler seeked peace with UK. Churchill refused it several times. Dragging the war long enough for the us to join and germany to lose.
but maybe i'm wrong?
but both ways, your point still holds.

[zbigi]

@Jean France and UK entered war with Hitler, but it was war only on paper, or so called "phoney war" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War) - or to speak plainly, just a betrayal of the promises given earlier. In practice, the UK did nothing at all (I think they might have thrown some leaflets from planes, but that's it), and France moved a small number of troops into German territory, only to withdraw it after some fighting a couple weeks later. Other than that, both Polish allies did nothing to stop Hitler from his aggression, which led to Stalin atacking Poland (and Finland) shortly thereafter, and Hitler attacking Denmark, Norway, Benelux countries and France.
The disconnect from reality on French and UK side was so big that, when Polish authorities saw that German attack was imminent and decided to give an order for mass mobilization on August 29th, French and UK ambassadors together convinced the Poles not to do it, as it would be "escalating the conflict". Unfortunately, gullible Polish government listened to them, which led to a chaotic mobilization during first days of September, already under German fire.

[grundomatic]

...France's unwillingness to fight in 1939 led to war with tens of millions of victims...

This is one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that millions of Germans doing their duty and sacrificing themselves for a cause larger than themselves enabled the war to occur. So if we are going to extoll "duty" and "self-sacrifice", we had better get the answers for the questions "duty to...?" and "self-sacrifice for...?" correct.