Source
r/geopolitics•
NotRealRDJ

Traditionanally, Has suffering been an accelerator of Development or Peace?

Question

During entirety of 19th century the amount of medical progress made was dwarfed by medical progress made in 4 years of WW1. Similarly WW2 saw not only development of Radar but most importantly development of nuclear energy and it's synthesis. On the other hand J.R.R. Tolkein took inspiration for Lord of the Rings from his experiences as a British soldier in WW1. War and Peace too was written on experiences of war. Master and Margarita is considered one of the greatest works of 20th century and it was written under a totalitarian state-of-the-art USSR. It seems to me that technological and societal development is accelerated greatly by human suffering. Two World War s helped massively in Women's suffrage. Discrimination atleast in Western World has been heavily looked down upon after the holocaust. It seems to me that great tragedies and inflict pain and death over a large part of population leads to development of all kinds.

Victorian Era saw a Golden Age for Great Britain but terrible worker conditions. With environment heavily damaged and commoners treated as nothing more than sources for profit birth was given to great literature while at same time.

I would like to hear your thoughts regarding all of this. I think that I might have only chosen examples that agreed with my theory. If that is true then feel free to pole holes in my theory.

Posted Feb 24, 2019, 3:04 PM UTC

2617
theoryofdoom•

That's an interesting question, and it's one that doesn't present an obvious answer. I can see arguments for and against every possible response to that question: (1) that suffering has driven development and peace, (2) that suffering has driven development but not peace, (3) that suffering has driven peace but not development, and (4) that suffering has driven neither development nor peace.

The only historical pattern that clearly presents itself would be that whether peace or economic development were driven or not driven by human suffering would be that the answer would vary very much in time and space. Given that, I think it would probably be difficult to develop a theory of history based on the extent to which suffering led to greater human development.

7
KamikazeSkylark•

Art, such as you’ve described, is purely a matter of taste so I’m not quite sure why you’ve chosen that as a benefit of war or general suffering

Also, I’m not sure that WW1 could be called beneficial in any way since it led directly to WW2 in many people’s eyes due to the reparations Germany was made to pay

If we’re sticking to purely technological advances then absolutely war and suffering forces people to adapt. Most of the society changing technologies we have were a direct result of military experimentation or companies selling products and services to the military and eventually migrating to the civilian population in usage.

3
Amur_Tiger•

Just to clear the historical air a bit the reparations Germany had to pay were not unusual or extreme but they were seized upon by the German Armed Forces as a way to motivate the German people into pursuing a new war. This actually failed until the great depression and all it's financial fallout hit though which should say a thing or two about the actual burden of the treaty itself.

Essentially the 'blame Versailles' myth is an extension of the 'Stab in the back' myth that survives long after the other aspects of this myth have been rightfully discarded.

3
sanderudam•

Rivalry and competition undoubtedly supports technological innovation. And extreme competition (a war/ a fight to survive) also breeds extreme innovation. However a war also destroys: people, assets, wealth. WW1 and WW2 certainly helped create many important innovations in Europe, but it also ended the European domination of the world because of the utter devastation it caused.

Let's say we disregard human suffering and simply ask ourselves: "whether and in which way should we induce suffering/competition to enhance innovation to enhance society in general?" I don't know the answer, but I do have some ideas.

  1. War is not the only avenue to have competition. We have a global economy with global competition. Enabling healthy competition in a regulated free market, has and will provide innovation without the devastation a war would create.

  2. We can apply "non-destructive" methods of suffering (the whip) coupled with positive incentives (the candy) to steer innovation. Let's say we want to lower carbon emission and support development of renewable energy technologies. We apply taxes on emissions (the whip/the suffering) while providing subsidies to renewable energy. This, coupled with competition in a free market should in theory enhance innovation.

​

3
greetedworm•

Looking at it from a western perspective there seems to be some validity to the claim that suffering can lead to development and peace, but I think the argument might fall apart a bit when looking at non-western examples particularly Africa. Africa suffered under colonialism for generations and many African nations have had some sort of neo-colonialist influence over them in the post-colonialization era. There were some advances in development like infrastructure that came from colonialization but overall the suffering that it caused is greater than any advancements it brought. I would argue that colonialization stagnated development and certainly worsened peace in Africa. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your statement and if I am please feel free to correct me.

2
NotRealRDJOP•

You are not misinterpreting. You are correct. Africa did not not really gain anything from colonization besides pain but I think that can be attributed to the fact that Africa historically has never been a place of development. All development Africans and their descendents brought to the world were when they were in Americas or Europe. I am based towards South Asia so won't pass any judgement on that and don't know much about East or SouthEast Asia.

1
greetedworm•

All development Africans and their descendents brought to the world were when they were in Americas or Europe.

I think I'm gonna need you to explain this a little further, I'm an African Studies major so I would definitely disagree with that statement. I'm about to go into an exam and I have class right after that so I probably won't be able to respond for a few hours but I do want to continue this conversation.

1
NotRealRDJOP•

I meant that Africa is a huge continent with a desert spanning a third of it. Historically Africa was never centre of power in the world. There continent rarely contributed to development of the world in an way. This, I think, can be die to one of two reasons- either African people are inferior to rest of humanity or their continent is just a shit place. I believe that latter is true. My statement was pointing exactly that out. African people when not in Africa seem to the pattern.

You had pointed out how Africa does not follow my theory and I said that African continent is the reason for that and not those people.

Ofcourse I might be completely wrong as this just a theory of mine. So feel free to prove me wrong.

1
greetedworm•

This is a lot to unpack, first of all, there have been several large and powerful empires over Africa's history most notably being the Mali Empire and the Songhai Empire the former of the two built Timbuktu which was one of the first universities and had a massive library. Both were wealthy empires but did not interact with Europe as much as other empires because it was difficult to get to them. There are certainly geographic reasons that play into Africa's under-development but there are plenty of examples of other countries with similar problems who are not as underdeveloped as most African states.

The crux of my issue with your statement is that you seem to be disregarding the fact that Africa has been exploited by Europe since the 1400's when Portugal began importing slaves from West Africa. You have 300-400 years of Africans (most of whom being in their prime working age) being taken from their homes which meant the people most able to contribute to development in their society were gone. Then, when the slave trade ended colonialism began and you had several decades of resources being taken without any compensation, the destruction or degradation of most governments and ethnic tensions that were either fabricated or worsened by colonial powers. Then add in that in the 500 years of slavery and colonization the West was able to develop leaps and bounds ahead of Africa and it makes it much easier for Western states and MNC's to exert their influence on African states. This all leads to the underdevelopment we see today much more than geographic reasons.

3
Kantei•

Applying your theory to the recovery efforts of developed or emerging European powers in the 19th-20th century may have some credence to it, but Africa is highly different because for the vast majority of the continent, it has not experienced actual self-determination until the past 50-70 years (depending on the exact country). Even after independence, the new countries were largely leftovers from colonial times, with many borders inaccurately defining cultures and ethnicities - making it highly difficult to develop a stable nation-state. Unlike South Asia (where you may be more familiar with), not many African colonies had the same level of autonomy and unifying nationalism that the former British Raj saw.

Post-colonial Africa may in fact be more comparable to Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire rather than the Europe of the 19th and 20th centuries. Similar to how much of Europe entered the Dark Ages, power vacuums and less defined national identities make for a more feudal landscape rather than an effective effort to rebuild or develop.

Not everything for Africa is bleak, however - under the Solow-Swan perspective, many African countries are expected to leapfrog technologically, with better utilization of their resources and human capital making their ‘catch-up’ to the emerging world relatively quicker than some might expect. This is a process that will likely take a century or more to achieve, but is still more likely to occur than not.

2
Interpine•

There's no evidence of this at all. Inequality definitely creates development, banking definitely creates development. The suffering these 2 institutions create is necessary for development, but there's no economic evidence that war creates any lasting gains.

Since the work of North and Weingast, it's become consensus in economic history that the "Malthusian Trap" (0 GDP per capita growth - basically a Sumerian was just as poor as a Medieval Frenchman, with very little difference in standard of living) was finally broken because the Bank of England created a stable banking environment in England. The problem before the industrial revolution wasn't that the technology to industrialize didn't exist, but that the capital didn't exist to invest in it on a large scale. In 1688, the Glorious Revolution led to a constitutional government in England, and lords, angry that the King so often defaulted on his loans, created the Bank of England to "police" crown finances.

Before 1694, banking was like playing the stock market. The King could default any moment, causing the collapse of your country's entire financial sector, and your life savings would be wiped out overnight. This is why most people didn't deposit their savings. They just hoarded them, so that money never went back into the economy. After the financial revolution of the 18th century, banking became far more of a sure-thing, and almost every cent earned would eventually be re-invested into the economy.

With this in mind, the "technology capital gap" hasn't changed today. The world is still massively underdeveloped compared to the level of technology available. Think of all the technologies - fully automated factories, AI, machine learning, fiber optics - that are in use in a small part of the world but nonexistent in the vast majority. The fact is that technology has never been the thing holding back economic progress in the world, lack of capital is.

2
geopolitics_banbotMOD•

Rules / Submission Statement Guide / Wiki Resources

1
[deleted]•

I'll be honest in your post is kind of confusing since you seem to ask whether the collective suffering of peoples is a motivator for peace politically, like for example Europe being motivated to create the EU as a result of the devastation of WWII. But then you seem to go off into tangents about how misery creates great art. (Mostly because this is a sub for political discussion)

To answer your question really quick about misery creating great art. It does seem to be a pattern, like how the US's greatest period for film-making was in the 70's after a traumatic decade involving the Civil Rights movement, the Vietnam War, the assassination of high profile political figures, and the Watergate scandal. But art is subjective, and I don't see why a simple tale of good vs evil with a happy ending can't count as art as well.

As for whether war and suffering motivates people to seek peace. I think one certainly make the argument that it is a factor. For example, a lot of analysts speculated that Algeria was not a part of the Arab Spring because of the country's tumultuous history of French rule, the Revolution, and then the Civil War in the 90's. Generations of Algerians were simply too traumatized by conflict to undergo the mass uprisings that swept the Middle-East. The aforementioned example of the EU. Its not the be all end all for peace, but it is a motivating factor.

1
NotRealRDJOP•

I was not talking about peace. I was saying that if there are two societies where one is peaceful and other is suffering terribly than historically it seems that peaceful society will become stagnant while war torn society will change and develop both technologically and culturally.

1
[deleted]•

peaceful society will become stagnant while war torn society will change and develop both technologically and culturally.

I didn't get an impression of that from your submission statement, but it is something I am interested in discussing. In general terms, yes historically it is a trend for Civilizational Empires experiencing long periods of peace, Rome, Persia, various Chinese dynasties, Ottomans, to give into decadence and ultimately collapse.

As for war-torn societies reuniting and becoming stronger. It really depends. One can say that is the crux Chinese history and the opening line of its most treasured work of literature Three Kingdoms, "The Empire long united must divide, long divided must unite." A country with a long history of catastrophes like the Three Kingdoms period, An Lushan Rebellion, Mongol Conquest, Century of Humiliation. But always reforming itself into stronger entities like the Tang Dynasty, Song Dynasty, Ming Dynasty, and although it remains to be seen, the period of economic and technological progress under the CCP. Elsewhere however, in other under-developed countries with a propensity for conflict. Psychology applies to humans and if a country has undergone catastrophic conflict involving the leveling of infrastructure and mass killings of civilians, it would create a mental aversion from ordinary people to conflict that can guarantee peace for a while. Take Iraq, which has had to deal with Saddam's rule, the Gulf War, the American occupation, the rise of ISIS. Right now even if the country remains dysfunctional and corrupt to the point where it cannot exploit its natural resource wealth, the people have seen so much war that their appetite for conflict is greatly diminished. But, psychological aversion to war in my view is only a band-aid that buys you a decade at most. Its something that has to be combined with structural changes like the formation of the EU or China's economic reforms. If Iraq still remains corrupt and divided along sectarian lines, then a new civil war might very well be possible in the future.

1