No, you cannot have society without violence - According to all known history

Author: Best.Korea

Posts

Total: 16
Topic's author
#1
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,007
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Even if we were to apply thousands of years of selection and removal of violent people from our society, our society would still be violent.

Why?

History tells us that in times of peace, humans start to slowly group and turn against each other. We see this literally everywhere.

People at work are talking bad things against each other.
Why are they doing that? Is it because they want peace? No. It is because they have the need to degrade others and to fight.

This need to demonstrate superiority (which they all have) is what produces the conflict.
Verbal conflict escalates into violence. If one side seems "right" in the conflict, that is irrelevant. All sides are eager for the conflict.

"The early human tribes fought each other" not because of "some injustice that one did to other".
In fact, we see that throughout history people were eager for conflict and basically just waited for the excuse to do it.

The church supported the crusades. Muslims supported endless wars for islam. Germans supported Hitler. Russians supported Stalin. Americans supported Bush. Japanese supported their emperor.

Entire human history is a history of wars and conflicts and people manufacturing the conflicts.

People cannot possibly function without a conflict, as the people cannot function without disagreement and disagreement always leads to conflict.

Some people might say "peace is possible". However, peace doesnt exist in any society today, and it did not exist in any society before. Therefore, we have no reason to believe that peace is possible.

Even peace with nature is not possible, since humans have the compulsive need to destroy nature.
Humans cannot live without killing something and reproducing to the point of where population is unsustainable.

Even societies that seem peaceful from the distance are actually full of internal conflicts and people there are stepping on each other all the time.

There can be "little less violence", but there cannot be "no violence".

Kim Jong il believed that only a society with single-minded unity can be a peaceful society. If disagreement doesnt exist, neither does conflict. However, even when all people agreed on some principles, there were still disagreements on other things and violence was still present.

#2
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,775
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Best.Korea

#3
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Best.Korea
Yes, this is true, because of human nature. 

And human nature is to sin/be violent.

But this does not mean we should not at least try to stop violence. 
Topic's author
#4
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,007
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@FLRW
The problem is that rules can never stop all violence. They may stop some, but not all.
Topic's author
#5
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,007
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
But this does not mean we should not at least try to stop violence.
Yes, we should try to reduce it if we can.

#6
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
A. Sin is a concept relative to evolved intellect.

B. Human nature and associated aggression is a base function relative to survival and procreation.


So we could attempt to re-educate the entire human race.

And possibly re-engineer the human machine.

What are the chances of achieving either?


#7
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,785
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
A. Sin is a concept relative to evolved intellect.

B. Human nature and associated aggression is a base function relative to survival and procreation.
Human nature, like all of nature, is evolving, and it has been a continuous progress of developing higher degrees of consciousness which subordinates instincts to a more civilized form.

So we could attempt to re-educate the entire human race.

And possibly re-engineer the human machine.

What are the chances of achieving either?
The chances are pretty good, considering that evolutionary progess is inevitable. 

We are at the boundary between what has been and what is striving to emerge, humanity will necessariloy become better educated and more re-engineered as time goes on, what form that takes remains to be seen, but the history of the evolution of life has been one that is observed to be self-transcendent, something transcends the living individual in some mysterious way, something draws individuals together and aggregates living things into larger whole.  Looking at evolutionary trends, there is every reason to believe that Mankind is progressing towards a more integrated and better coordinated whole.
#8
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,775
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

What is taking AI so long to take over? Humans are just bugs. 
Approximately 600 million years have elapsed since humans and insects shared their last common evolutionary ancestor. However, as we will discover, the similarities between humans and insects are still quite striking, as are the differences that emerged between these two lineages over time.
Topic's author
#9
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,007
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@FLRW
What is taking AI so long to take over?
The AI is being tested and used in military, so I assume the terminator scenario is getting more and more possible.
#10
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Sidewalker
I agree.
#11
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,047
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Sidewalker
We are at the boundary between what has been and what is striving to emerge,..........Mankind is progressing towards a more integrated and better coordinated whole.
Exponentially expanding "boundary" of technology of which, there are no guarantee's, that, humanity will pass the test of survival, via their Meta-space mind accessing abilities, that, like most of the occupied space existence, carries with it, an inherent double-edged sword, that, may further the integrity of the syntropic whole, or destroy the integrity of the syntropic whole.

#12
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Best.Korea
History tells us that in times of peace, humans start to slowly group and turn against each other. We see this literally everywhere.
Argumentum ad antiquitatem.

This need to demonstrate superiority (which they all have) is what produces the conflict.
Verbal conflict escalates into violence. If one side seems "right" in the conflict, that is irrelevant. All sides are eager for the conflict.
We've all engaged verbal conflict as members of this site. Not one time, at least to my knowledge, has said conflict escalated to violence.

In fact, we see that throughout history people were eager for conflict and basically just waited for the excuse to do it.
You've observed them just engaging conflict just for the sake of engaging conflict?

The church supported the crusades. Muslims supported endless wars for islam. Germans supported Hitler. Russians supported Stalin. Americans supported Bush. Japanese supported their emperor.
Not all.

People cannot possibly function without a conflict, as the people cannot function without disagreement and disagreement always leads to conflict.
CONFLICT=/=VIOLENCE.

Some people might say "peace is possible". However, peace doesnt exist in any society today, and it did not exist in any society before. Therefore, we have no reason to believe that peace is possible.

Even peace with nature is not possible, since humans have the compulsive need to destroy nature.
Humans cannot live without killing something and reproducing to the point of where population is unsustainable.

Even societies that seem peaceful from the distance are actually full of internal conflicts and people there are stepping on each other all the time.

There can be "little less violence", but there cannot be "no violence".

Kim Jong il believed that only a society with single-minded unity can be a peaceful society. If disagreement doesnt exist, neither does conflict. However, even when all people agreed on some principles, there were still disagreements on other things and violence was still present.
The ones who typically state "peace is impossible" are usually the one who sanction and/or perpetrate violence.

Topic's author
#13
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,007
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Athias
Argumentum ad antiquitatem.
Is a false claim. There never was a peaceful society. To claim that people can create one when they have no working plan for that and when history disagrees with existance of peace is wrong. To disregard history in anything would be a mistake.


We've all engaged verbal conflict as members of this site. Not one time, at least to my knowledge, has said conflict escalated to violence.
Hence, the difference between online site and society. We dont know what users do in real life.


You've observed them just engaging conflict just for the sake of engaging conflict?
Entire history is humans competing and being eager for conflict.


Not all.
Is an irrelevant claim, since society is not made from minority in society.


CONFLICT=/=VIOLENCE
Is a false statement. Verbal conflict is just an introduction for violent conflict, that being an introduction to war.


The ones who typically state "peace is impossible" are usually the one who sanction and/or perpetrate violence.
Is irrelevant, since it doesnt affect the correctness of the claim. I am all for peace, but I know its just a fairy tale. Even peaceful groups turn violent and abusive after some time. The entire point of humanity is competition for power. If you wont compete for power,  you will be oppressed by those who will.
#14
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Best.Korea
Is a false claim. There never was a peaceful society. To claim that people can create one when they have no working plan for that and when history disagrees with existance of peace is wrong. To disregard history in anything would be a mistake.
Argumentum ad antiquitatem.

Hence, the difference between online site and society. We dont know what users do in real life.
Have you engaged a violent altercation in every conflict of which you've been party?

Entire history is humans competing and being eager for conflict.
You've observed this?

Is an irrelevant claim, since society is not made from minority in society.
Argumentum ad populum.

Is a false statement. Verbal conflict is just an introduction for violent conflict, that being an introduction to war.
An erroneous logical biconditional. I'll repeat: CONFLICT =/= VIOLENCE.

Is irrelevant, since it doesnt affect the correctness of the claim.
Are you correct? That's what we're trying to find out.

I am all for peace, but I know its just a fairy tale.
Then how are you "for it"?

Even peaceful groups turn violent and abusive after some time.
All of them? List them for me.

The entire point of humanity is competition for power
And that's presumably your point as well? And mine?

If you wont compete for power,  you will be oppressed by those who will.
Slave or a Master, huh? I reject both. Now what?







Topic's author
#15
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,007
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Athias
Slave or a Master, huh? I reject both. Now what?
It would be great if everyone followed that, but great majority dont.
#16
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Best.Korea
I'm my own Master.

And also a Slave to myself.