Is War Over? -A Paradox explained [5:45] -Kurzgesagt
Posted Sep 19, 2016, 6:20 PM UTC
15236
I keep hearing the economic/globalization argument in this video, and it sounds like the same things that were said before the first world war started. I think it's just as hazardous to get complacent and assume that war won't happen.
12
The video mentioned nuclear weapons but didn't really emphasize it.
The democratic peace theory is pretty okay, but frankly MAD is a much stronger argument for global peace.
The democratic peace theory is what keeps the democratic world from fighting each other, and nuclear weapons/mutually assured destruction is what keeps autocratic nations from fighting other nations.
And one little thing that irks me about the video at the end is he says "humanity may be really changing"
no, we aren't changing. We haven't changed, and unless we start genetically modifying ourselves (which we really might be soon) then we won't change this century either. What will change are the systems that govern us. It's important to make that distinction because we can never just count on the character of humanity to do the right thing. We haven't evolved past the capacity to do terrible things.
16
Before the first world war countries were arming themselves because they felt that there would be a huge battle in Europe. No one preticted that it would be as big as it was but there were was a definate feeling of "calm before storm". I would argue that right now we are not in nearly the same position as we were back then.
9
Can you expand on what you mean when you say "we are not in nearly the same position?"
I'm not questioning your knowledge on the subject, just trying to educate myself.
5
I wouldn't call myself knowledgeable on the subject. However the impressions I have gotten from sources over the years made that impression on me.
An incredible source of knowledge when it comes to WW1 available now is the youtube channel "The Great War" I would suggest watching that if you want learn a lot more.
Basically what it comes down to is that for the past thousand years or so Europe had always been fighting. The time before the first world war was a unusual peaceful time. However it was still full of tension and people prepared for war. It was a war that was going to happen. Even if Archduke Franz Ferdinand hadn't been assassinated enough factions had interests in a huge war that it was inevitable.
Nowadays war is more costly and frowned upon than ever. We don't really view it in the same glorious light that the people of 20th century Europe did.
2
I agree. The video touched upon it a little bit, but essentially war was an extension of foreign politics. There wasn't as much finesse, and there weren't enough frameworks in place to make sure that everyone was essentially playing by the same rules, or even the same game, when it came to borders, power and resources. Mostly all of Europe were monarchies, hence old powers and old feuds and wrongings that countries felt that should be put right. It wasn't like Franz Ferdinand, archduke of Austria-Hungary, was such a vital, important or liked person in Europe that all countries started fighting over the assassination. Rather, is was an excuse to finally kick off.
1
Germany and AH wanted a bigger pie from colonial territories to support their rapidly expanding industries (characterized by the Second Industrial Revolution), which at the time were dominated by the UK and France. WW1 was a war over resources, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was just the cover story.
1
Should we see a similar war over resources within the next century as oil starts to run out and middle east tensions rise?
2
I saw this and thought it was a new video D:
2
Kurzgesagt is generally good, but this is such a massive topic that a 6 minute video can't do it justice. There's a debate about how nuclear weapons factor in, but even that should be mentioned at least.
2
It's a bit dishonest to say all colonialism is horrible and then use the Congo as your representative example.
It would be like saying 3-pointers are the most important thing in all of basketball and then using Stephen Curry as your example of the typical basketball player.
It's also pretty weird to list several reasons why nations aren't going to war as much and never mention the atomic bomb. It might not be the main reason to avoid war, but it does matter.
1
The part were the narrator says that savage capitalism is better than colonialism made me rage quit this video.
-6
I mean that's hard to argue with. It's kind of like comparing Hitler's Germany to the neo natzis who live down the street. Both suck, and are seriously problematic, but one is pretty objectively worse than the other. The only argument I could see for capitalism being worse is the scale.
7
Actually, capitalism has made life better for pretty much every single class of people from when it took off around the 17th Century. I don't know how anyone could seriously believe that trading for mutual benefit is worse than outright murder.
0
Well I mean that's just wrong, at least in terms of the globalized capitalism we're talking about. Globalization has resulted in the dislocation and destruction of entire ways of life, as well as, believe it or not, the economic destruction of many nations.
2
Can you give me an example of a nation that was economically destroyed by capitalism?
1
Yeah, these videos can be a little too "Go team capitalism! Go team democracy!" for me. Having a different political system doesn't mean automatic war, and I'd argue that we need to see some variety in order to advance our society. Someone might figure out something better, but they can't if we keep shutting them down and installing the government we think is the best ever no questions asked.
2
If Hillary is elected war won't be over.
-12†
Oh just shut the fuck up. This shit is getting so old by now.
5†
Well, she is a war hawk. There was a really good NYT piece about it several years ago
Edit. Here it is if you don't believe me http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html
5†
Here is the one that even people on a computer can use.
I don't have an opinion either way, just linking the more suitable address.
2
several years ago
you mean several months ago?
And anyways I read that article, very slowly, and I don't think it shapes her out to be too much of a war hawk. Frankly the worst part about her (as revealed by that article and other places) is her connection to the established military-industrial complex and her acknowledgment of the US military as a tool.
She won't be as doveish as Obama, but I don't think she'd do anything nearly as absurd as what George W. Bush did in Iraq. I think people play that fear up too much.
1
War hawk doesn't mean you irrationally go to war. It means you feel it is an option. She is a pragmatist.
-3†
No her pockets are lined by the weapons manufacturers. If you don't think Hillary=more war then idk what to say, I'm not trying to offend anyone. Trump is a shitty chose but this election is the epitome of choosing the better of the two evils.
4†
Not as old as the video
1
Are you getting triggered?
Edit: Looks like a lot of people are triggered
-5
Speaking of shit getting old, "PTSD is so funny right guys?"
1†
The people using "triggered" are NOT joking about PTSD. They are joking about the people who claim to have gotten PTSD because someone disagreed with them on Twitter or because someone doesn't accept they are Legolas-gender. Those are the fuckers devaluing PTSD.
I don't care about your argument though, both candidates are a joke.
1
Is this a new meme I'm not aware of?
-1
Imagine in 75 years and (if we were alive) being able to look back and breathe a breath of relief that there hasn't been another large war
OR
Imagine within those 75 years witnessing a massive, worldwide war then being forever changed by it and only reminiscing of the "peaceful" times like today.
edit: fixed some words thanks to u/Draconocard
FTFY