| ▲ | brianjlogan 7 hours ago |
| Hmm... Interestingly one does not look at the solutions to de-escalate conflict. Despite the proxy wars we've had a relatively peaceful world since WW1/WW2. Please humor me here, I'm not saying the world is horror free. The emphasis I would hope would also be for improved negotiation tactics, better resource sharing and goal alignment between groups of people. Why is it that we can dream up more conflict but not peaceful scenarios? Fear is a better attention grabber than the slog of compromise and mutual understanding. Edit: Fell into the trap of commenting on politics. To an actual curiosity technical position. Has anyone seen any good content on living underground from an energy efficiency point of view? |
|
| ▲ | cladopa 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Are you American? Because if you are from the country that dominated the world since WWII it feels different than being from the rest of the world. Bretton Woods gave the Americans an "exorbitant privilege" that basically meant the US could live extracting wealth continuously from the rest of the world. Then later the petrodollar system was established. People needed oil, the US would protect the Arabs with its immense army (financed with the dollar system) and in return the oil had to be sold in dollars, so all the world needed dollars if they wanted energy. The US could just print dollars, and the rest of the world would suffer inflation. That was great for the US for sure. Why not continue? Because the rest of the world do not want to continue supporting the US system. The US was ok with Sadam using chemical weapons against Kurdish civilians until he decided to change the currency for paying the oil to euros. The US does not want to de-escalate if that means the world stops buying US bonds and suddenly they are bankrupt and can not pay its debts exporting inflation to the rest of the world. If Americans suddenly lose 50 to 70% of purchasing power then there will be war inside the US, not outside. |
| |
| ▲ | ctippett 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Except America went to war with Saddam Hussein a full decade before the move to the Euro and was largely a reaction to the invasion of Kuwait. | | |
| ▲ | coldtea 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Saddam was their man for a full decade prior to that war, to go against Iran. Even the Kuwait invasion was given the go ahead by the us with false assurances, until they sucker punched him for it. It's not as if they us gave a shit or two about Kuwait's freedom or not (which was partitioned from traditional iraq teritorry in the past anyway, and a monarchy itself). Then they'd let him mostly be after 1991 until we made the mistake to push for the Euro in early 2000s. | | |
| ▲ | cogman10 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | To add, the primary reason the US supported Iraq was because it didn't want Iran to send oil to the USSR. This was because the US didn't want a communist nation to have a good economy. That's the story of a bunch of the CIAs operations. | | |
| ▲ | kakacik an hour ago | parent [-] | | Iran itself in its current form is a continuous line of failures of CIA and MI6 that led to their revolution against highly unpopular shah that was undemocratically installed only by those powers. Why do you think back then the us embassy situation evolved as it did. 'Embassy' my ass, full of cia folks regardless what shallow hollywood flicks try to propagate, meddling with internal affairs for profit and power of british and americans, while impoverished common locals suffered greatly. As usual with cia it backfired tremendously, made huge mess for decades in entire region, killed gazillion of innocents but since there aint no us citizens its just some annoying background noise of some brown 'people', right. Anybody with above-maga intelligence can piece together those few wikipedia articles, but egos got hurt so its highly emotional topic for americans. If at least you guys learned from your collosal mistakes... | | |
| ▲ | YZF 26 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It's complicated. You can read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution The American and the British supported the Shah and ousted the popular prime minister in 1953: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... But why start/stop there? We can go farther back: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran Anyways, it's true the US meddled in Iran. The most recent meddling pre the Islamic Revolution pressuring the Shah to improve the human rights situation which enabled the (mostly secular) anti-regime forces to organize. "In 1977 the Shah responded to the "polite reminder" of the importance of political rights by the new American president, Jimmy Carter, by granting amnesty to some prisoners and allowing the Red Cross to visit prisons. Through 1977 liberal opposition formed organizations and issued open letters denouncing the government." from the above. These social process culminated in the Shah leaving Iran. Kind of funny: "Worse for the Shah was that the Western media, especially the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), immediately put Khomeini into the spotlight.[18][151] Khomeini rapidly became a household name in the West, portraying himself as an "Eastern mystic" who did not seek power, but instead sought to "free" his people from "oppression." Western media outlets, usually critical of such claims, became one of Khomeini's most powerful tools.[18][117]" There are a lot of good books about Iran. Another interesting aspect is that a lot of the idealistic left wing revolutionaries that tried to remove the Shah were IIRC amongst the first to be lined up against a wall and executed by the Islamists that took over. AI summary: "The aftermath of the 1979 Iranian Revolution was a brutal and tragic period for the secular, left-wing, and Marxist groups that had played a crucial role in overthrowing Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. While the revolution is often remembered strictly as an Islamic uprising, it was actually a broad coalition of secular liberals, student movements, labor unions, communists (like the Tudeh Party), Marxist guerrillas (like the Fedayeen-e Khalq), and Islamists who united against the Shah's autocracy. However, once the Shah went into exile in January 1979 and the monarchy collapsed, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his Islamist supporters moved swiftly to monopolize power and systematically eliminate their former revolutionary partners." EDIT: Another interesting detail in there is that some internal massacre ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Friday_(1978) ) is blamed on the Zionists. This claim is completely debunked - never happened. Everything old is new again. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | roncesvalles 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >The emphasis I would hope would also be for improved negotiation tactics, better resource sharing and goal alignment between groups of people. The fallacy in the line of thinking that "why don't we all just shake hands, say something nice, and get along with each other" comes from the erroneous belief that everyone in the world just wants peace and material prosperity for themselves and their people. This isn't the case, for countless reasons. Peace is what you and I want, because we're living in highly privileged lives where maintaining the peaceful status quo (one in which we're on top) for as long as we live is the best outcome for us, and because we have a fairly rational view of life and the world (e.g. we are not convinced that killing a certain people is the only key to an eternity in "heaven", or have bought into some myth of ethnoracial/cultural exceptionalism that needs to be defended by any means). We also aren't emburdened by some great injustice for which we have a burning itch for vengeance (e.g. no one has bombed your whole family). This just isn't the case for everyone in the world. |
| |
| ▲ | llbbdd 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Of all things there's a relevant Tumblr post from nearly a decade ago that I often think everyone should consider (in agreement BTW): "If your solution to some problem relies on “If everyone would just…” then you do not have a solution. Everyone is not going to just. At not time in the history of the universe has everyone just, and they’re not going to start now." | |
| ▲ | brianjlogan 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I know a number of people who grew up in extreme poverty who are extremely well reasoned here and others who are extremely spoiled and fortunate who would gladly enter into a holy war. I don't think you can quite generalize that much. Additionally cooperation is an evolutionary advantage and world war is a species level threat now that we have nuclear weapons. I don't believe that everyone wants peace. I believe the people who have the ability to shape policy and invest capital would want peace. Which I think is also complicated. Kind of harkens back to the cliche that WW1 was caused by old people romanticizing war. Most letters between the heads of states confirmed they were anticipating industrial destruction and death but they felt the pressure to initiate war anyway. | |
| ▲ | cindyllm 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| ▲ | TheGRS 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Globalization offered the model for this. When the economy is globally linked there is more pressure for stability than conflict. I think that theory still holds. The fallout of the last 10 years is that the distribution of the wealth created in that system has not been even at all, and we are seeing huge wealth gaps. Jobs were redistributed to poorer nations and lost in a lot of wealthier markets. If nations can solve wealth and job distribution under globalization then I think we return back to peaceful times. The current problems stem from people getting left out and then voting in leaders who do not understand diplomacy or the global market at all. |
| |
| ▲ | Centigonal 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I'll add to this by saying that globalization works as well as it does because the average person would suffer dramatically from a major war and the resulting breakdown of global supply chains. People who are wealthy enough to move anywhere in the world (including to a military-grade bunker somewhere remote like New Zealand) if their current domicile is negatively affected don't have as strong of an incentive to maintain peace. | | |
| ▲ | PaulDavisThe1st 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | As a corollary: people who, because of geography, are unlikely to suffer any traditional or novel military consequences of a war in country <X> (e.g. Americans w.r.t a war in the middle east) are only going to have moral reasons for avoiding such a war, other than the risk to members of their family and friends. This makes the risks from such countries significantly worse than those who are militarily at risk should they choose to attack another. Of course, none of that stops terroristic responses to war, but those by themselves affect relatively small numbers of people (or have done so far; obviously terroristic use of nuclear weapons would change that). We can see all of this in the voices of the segment of the American population that is "all in" for the war in Iran, safe in their belief that they will suffer no militaristic consequences from it. | |
| ▲ | michaelt 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > People who are wealthy enough to move anywhere in the world (including to a military-grade bunker somewhere remote like New Zealand) if their current domicile is negatively affected don't have as strong of an incentive to maintain peace. Eh, if you’re a billionaire factory owner and landlord, the kind of war that would send you to a military grade bunker in New Zealand will be bad for your factories, properties, workers and tenants. Also, a man can only go to the opera if the singers and orchestra aren’t busy scavenging for food or fighting mutant wolves. And the same is true of most other entertainment, fine dining, fashion and suchlike. Sane wealthy people gain nothing from a world scale war, and in fact would face a big loss in quality of life. |
| |
| ▲ | some_random 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | As I understand it, the idea was that there would be winners and losers from globalization but overall the benefit would be more global and outweigh localized drawbacks. This means that you can tax the global benefit and compensate the losers while still having everyone come out ahead! Sounds fantastic right, but in reality there were winners and losers and no one gave a shit about the losers. Detroit and Toledo did not gracefully transition from being industrial centers to centers of art and culture, they rusted and rotted and were denigrated by the coastal elite who benefited from their place in the world as finance and service hubs. | | |
| ▲ | mikestorrent 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | One of the reasons for this is that the financial system - which is supposed to serve as a mechanism for representing value in a fungible way - does not assign value to many forms of structured, engineered creation. For instance, a high-performing team within an organization has value, held in the agreements and trusts between the people; organizations will destroy this in a second if it suits them because there is no quantitative record of the value of that group. Similarly, at scale, there is intense value in having all of the necessary tooling in one city to manufacture something as complicated as a car, to use your Detroit example. We can see the shadow of the qualitative value by looking at the losses incurred by all the ancillary industries affected when a major company like GM moves manufacturing out of town and everything downstream of that shuts down; and we can see the long tail of the loss in terms of the socioeconomic outcomes of the average working class person living there. In a sense, these corporate (and on the next scale up, governmental) decisions have a large scale social cost that is externalized when it should probably have to be borne by the company. A generation of men that should have grown up to take their father's place building cars instead are relegated to either leaving their city or accepting one of the lesser jobs that they're forced to fight for; meanwhile the shareholders of the company profit from lower labour cost somewhere else. Capitalism offers no means of dealing with this problem; creating this problem is incentivized. Many of the problems capitalism does solve, it does so through quantization of value; perhaps we need to find a better way to map social value as a second or third order system out beyond raw currency so that we don't destroy it. | |
| ▲ | cucumber3732842 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >Detroit and Toledo did not gracefully transition from being industrial centers to centers of art and culture, they rusted and rotted and were denigrated by the coastal elite who benefited from their place in the world as finance and service hubs. For people who give such lip service to sustainability you'd think their political policy would have taken longer to run such a course. |
| |
| ▲ | voidmain 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | “Wilt thou call again thy peoples, wilt thou craze anew thy Kings?
“Lo! my lightnings pass before thee, and their whistling servant brings,
“Ere the drowsy street hath stirred—
“Every masked and midnight word,
“And the nations break their fast upon these things. “So I make a jest of Wonder, and a mock of Time and Space.
“The roofless Seas an hostel, and the Earth a market-place,
“Where the anxious traders know
“Each is surety for his foe,
“And none may thrive without his fellows’ grace. “Now this is all my subtlety and this is all my wit,
“God give thee good enlightenment, My Master in the Pit.
“But behold all Earth is laid
“In the Peace which I have made,
“And behold I wait on thee to trouble it!” The Peace of Dives
Kipling, 1903 https://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poem/poems_dives.htm (As you know, there have been no major wars since then) | |
| ▲ | cicko 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | So the problem is that people in poor countries are finally not starving but not that the person with a chainsaw owns hundreds of billions of dollars? | | |
| ▲ | kakacik an hour ago | parent [-] | | The problem in my view is, once dirt poor countries that work for nothing in horrible sweatshops to make cheap trinkets skill finally up and entire region moves from horribly poor to just poorish, the not en-vogue parts of the rich world will suffer some decline if they dont adapt and refocus on whats needed now and in near future. Sounds like it matches those 2 regions although I am not that familiar with Toledo story. Also, from poor countries perspective it certainly looks like first world 'problems' they wish they had. If we lift whole world from poverty then our western wages wont buy us much. You can see this in more egalitarian societies like nordics or Switzerland, there are no dirt poor, big middle class but you pay a lot for stuff and services and dont hoard tons of wealth. State picks up the tab for healthcare and whole education though. Thats the price for well functioning modern society (nothing to do with socialism), it has benefits but this is the cost and it cant be avoided. I personally like living and raising kids in such system a lot, way more than US one for example. |
| |
| ▲ | pedalpete 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I agree with your comment regarding fairer distribution, but I think when we look at globalisation's impact on war, I'm not sure this is really playing out. Iran has not benefitted hugely from globalisation (unless I'm missing something), however because of globalisation and their ability to impact the global economy, they have an outsized hand to play relative to their GDP. |
|
|
| ▲ | pixl97 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >Why is it that we can dream up more conflict but not peaceful scenarios? Because nature is filled with examples. Look at the plants around you. They are nice and peaceful, right? No wars with other plants, no battles for life and death and resources... Well if you don't know anything about plants that's exactly what you'd think. And I'm not really talking about animals and insects that are trying to consume them, plants themselves, rooted into the ground are in a constant war. Some breed very quickly to compete, making millions of seeds or growing at insane speeds. Some plants poison the soil around them with horrifically toxic substances so only they can grow. Some plants grow broad leaves flat against the ground strangling anything that tries to grow. Other plants make vast canopies creating a world of darkness below them to snuff competitors. Some plants have symbiotic relationships with bacteria to fix nitrogen so they grow faster than other plants. Some plants have relationships with ants and the ants keep competition away. War and peace are simply game theories in real life. Take your statement >Why is it that we can dream up more conflict but not peaceful scenarios? Anything that doesn't involve you smashing someone's head in and instead doing anything that is even slightly cooperative is a peaceful scenario. Pretty much everything you do every day is just that. Furthermore you need to dream up every possible conflict idea that you possibly can if you want to defend against it. The difficult part there is not using it against others. This is why you see people worry about things like advance AI. Because while it could come up with all kinds of peaceful ideas, even just a few good conflict ideas could make mankind go extinct. |
| |
| ▲ | squibonpig 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Human cooperation is another survival strategy, and a very effective one when achievable. Peace in no way disagrees with what you said, anymore than plant cooperation with bacteria is a counterexample. |
|
|
| ▲ | rembal 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That could work if the actors were rational. Unfortunately, they are largely ideological. |
| |
| ▲ | tryauuum 5 minutes ago | parent [-] | | you don't have to be ideological. You can be perfectly rational and continue a seemingly useless pointless war, when the alternative is "armed men return home and start to question your power". Your goal is to stay in power and every move which helps you with it is rational |
|
|
| ▲ | TacticalCoder an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Interestingly one does not look at the solutions to de-escalate conflict. There have been wars ongoing since more than centuries. Since way before the US even existed. We could name names and point to movement that have enslaved people, conquered many countries and brought misery everywhere they went way before the european/american slave trade took place, for example. And countries in which slavery persisted long after that one slave-trade was stopped. Even if you don't go to war, war and misery has a way to come to your country. While in the US the current president is 2/3rd of his total terms (counting the eight years) and things may go better later on, there are beliefs and cultures in other parts of the world that make it so they are nearly always at war. And this won't stop even should the US "play nice". |
|
| ▲ | poszlem 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think the reason we can imagine conflict easier than peace is pretty structural. Wars usually happen because of disequilibrium, and we're sitting right in the middle of a big one. The world order we know was built by and for the US when it was the uncontested superpower. Thats just not the case anymore. Countries that spent decades being the West's cheap labor pool have risen up, industrialized, built real militaries, and they are not going back to where they were. But the West isnt going to voluntarily get poorer to make room for them either. Both sides have real competing interests, this isnt some misunderstanding that better diplomacy can fix. Its a genuine redistribution problem. Thats why peaceful outcomes are so hard to picture. They require everyone to accept losses and nobody is lining up for that. |
| |
| ▲ | PaulDavisThe1st 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > US when it was the uncontested superpower. significant parts of the current world order evolved when the US was very much a contested superpower, c/o the USSR. While many things have changed since the dissolution of the USSR, many things have remained the same. Further, you can guarantee that if Russia had announced in the days of war rumors re: Iran that they would militarily (not just intelligence & logistics, if stories are to be believed) support Iran, the US would likely not have attacked in anything like this way. That they did not doesn't mean that the US is "uncontested", merely that Russia wasn't interested in that sort of positioning of its own (nuclear) military threat over US action in Iran. | |
| ▲ | ACCount37 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't think there are major unresolved economic tensions between US and Iran or the likes. US isn't, somehow, mad because Iran or Venezuela are suddenly very rich and prosperous and independent - that simply isn't true. The closest to your dynamic would be that between US and China, and those two aren't at war as of yet. Iran is vaguely supported by China, but it's a low level of support, and it isn't China's proxy. | | |
| ▲ | tmnvix 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | One theory is that control over Venezuelan and Iranian oil is a means of constricting Chinese economic competition. | | |
| ▲ | the_gipsy 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It definitely is control over the currency in which oil is traded. | |
| ▲ | XorNot 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes that's the "it actually makes sense" the more repugnant conservative pundits have been pushing because those guest spots on the right wing networks require you not to criticize the administration in any way. | | |
| ▲ | tmnvix 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Trump may be a violent moron, but this goes back further. US sanctions and intimidation of Iran and Venezuela has been supported by both parties when in power. It's a US regime thing, not a party/administration thing (that stuff is for the mugs who believe they have a democracy). |
|
| |
| ▲ | brianjlogan an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | The US relationship with China is fascinating. My entire life it has both been an economic boogeyman, the nation nipping at our heels, and yet also the manufacturing engine powering everything out companies were creating. Ignoring the one sided benefits of that even though you shouldn't it kind of reminds me maybe of the US and Britains relations? Not a 1:1 but the continental separation, the "greed" of external companies trying to exploit the natural resources and work force. And yet we're allies today. If you're interested in the topic I'd highly advise checking out Sarah Paine and her lectures. An interesting view point of Mao and the rise of China. |
| |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | CodingJeebus 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Why is it that we can dream up more conflict but not peaceful scenarios? Sadly, war is often a driver of economic growth. WWII pulled the US economy out the Great Depression and transformed it into one of the most prosperous in human history. I'd argue that the proxy wars the US has been waging largely exist to satiate a military industrial complex that is focused on growth. Hard to grow when your business is war if there are no wars to fight. And I'll wade into political waters. The US government has no problem waging war because it's not unpopular enough of an issue to threaten an administration. We're spending $1B a day now to fight Iran but we somehow can't find the political courage to improve healthcare or hunger here at home. |
| |
| ▲ | ACCount37 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's a property shared by any large scale government spending. The difference between pouring 80B into a war and pouring the same into infrastructure is that one gives you a more developed MIC and a lot of munitions and a lot of explosions (exported), and the other gives you... infrastructure, and construction industry. | | |
| ▲ | lotsofpulp 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | A big part of this is that apparently, any president can unilaterally decide to go to war and spend $1B per day destroying things, but building infrastructure for Americans requires the agreement of 60 US Senators. Pre-emptive strikes are “national security”, but ensuring nutritional food for children in schools, safe bridges and potable water, and healthcare are not “national security”. Look what Biden had to do to try and get Americans a piddling amount of paid sick leave and paid parental leave. And still 60 votes couldn’t be mustered. But if he wanted to bomb another country to the stone age, that was well within his capacity. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | testing22321 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The US spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined. When all you have is a hammer… |
| |
| ▲ | Apes 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The theory behind the US having a large military is that it acts as a sort of fleet in being - that the US prefers other methods of engaging with countries, and having a stronger military precludes other countries from engaging militarily. In turn, having stable global relations and protected global trade provides the US with a huge economic boon to fund its large military. That's the theory anyway - our Idiot King and his idiots have completely missed the point of the US military existing and are using it as a primary method of engagement, which is causing the economic boon used to fund the military to evaporate. As an aside, it's not a huge issue, but China's military costs use different accounting than the US, and seem lower by comparison. Apples to apples, China probably spends about half what the US does on military. | | |
| ▲ | testing22321 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Apples to apples, China probably spends about half what the US does on military. With fours times the population | |
| ▲ | ErroneousBosh 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > the US prefers other methods of engaging with countries, and having a stronger military precludes other countries from engaging militarily If the US has such a strong military why are they always begging European countries to help them with their various totally-not-a-war "actions", like most recently in Iran? Last time the UK got into something in the Middle East with the US we lost more people to "friendly fire" than enemy action. There's no real appetite for that any more. |
| |
| ▲ | tracerbulletx 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I mean we could just go back to talk softly and carry a big stick. There are options between pacifism and boisterous rabble rousing and picking fights that don't particularly need to be fought without good plans. |
|
|
| ▲ | neonsunset an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [dead] |
|
| ▲ | aaron695 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
