h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

On a discussion elsewhere, someone expressed a desire for world peace and posited that this was an achievable goal. I responded that conflict was an integral part of the human condition.

What are the views held here?

Cooperation is just as much a human characteristic, and is arguably the norm, otherwise we'd not have lasted this long as a species.




And if you disagree with me, I'll hit you with this stick!

So why do we have to legislate for taxes?

I don't think legislating for taxes proves that people don't cooperate. Group size and visible effect can be presumed to be factors.

I'd say conflict is probably inbuilt, and therefore our best hope is to get a strong tradition going of heated debate and/or friendly martial art bouts, to get it out of our systems.

conflict occurs in nature

leadership of wolf packs for example

humans and our sense of self provide the ability to hold a grudge and it is the emotional baggage that comes with the human condition that perpetuates conflit

It's emotions which lead to conflict, greed, pride, anger, fear etc - some are also present in other species and can lead to conflict there.

Humans have the ability to be rational and should - I stress should - be able to overcome the need for conflict. The sad thing is that we don't.

Are we talking conflict as in fighting, or conflict as in disagreement?

Because even being completely rational, people can come to different conclusions.

Conflict and co-operation are both human nature.

That's why you get arguments for and against the death penalty.

Yes, conflict and other nasties are part of life. The way to cope with them is to never expect things to be perfect, and try and be happy despite it.

conflict is an integral part and is we operate as a social animal. Conflict arises about rights for restricted resources - at basic levels food, sex and shelter.

It is also an integral part of our evolutionary development that has made us what we are today and who we will be in the future. Those who are good at resolving the conflict get the breeding rights and feeding rights etc so their offspring do better.

Of course, the problem is how we resolve the conflicts, not that they exist.

If SWL means has there always been conflict, and always will be (until the end of time as we know it) then:-
yes, imo.



>>the problem is how we resolve the conflicts, not that they exist<<

Tony Blair seems to have had some success in Northern Ireland

Just listening to Tzipi Livni talking on BBC news about Israel bombing the Gaza Strip. They're trying to splat some people who are sending missiles into Israel. The large number of missiles sent from the Palestinian side, haven't killed many Israelis but they're a terrible nuisance. The bombs the Israelis have sent have killed 300 in the last day or so. Mostly civilians. The Israelis are condemned for being disproportionate and the Palestinians are criticised for provoking the Israelis. The Palestinians bother the Israelis like a pesky gnat nipping at it rump, and an irritable swat becomes inevitable after a while. It doesn't look as though it can ever end. Too much pain and loss, year after year - the hatred being constantly stoked. Why can't they just mix together and be the same people? A couple of generation and you wouldn't be able to tell them apart. It won't happen though, will it? Shame.

It may be in our nature to co-operate with people once we trust them, but if there's no trust, there's no chance.

>It may be in our nature to co-operate with people once we trust them, but if there's no trust, there's no chance.

I agree (although I'd be careful using terms like "irritating" to describe Hamas's attacks - they do kill people and are intended to do so) and herein lies the problem with the whole Israel-Palestinian thing. The likes of Hamas attack Israel, Israel responds disproportionately and the civilian casualties draw more people to Hamas's message of war and revenge which brings us back to the start again.

Ah, Jerusalem (Israel-palestine) is the 'heart' of world conflict, imo.
I don't see any direct role for Britain, atm, particularly with the latest world economic/political situation.

The Iraq situation may be closer to stability, but Afghanistan?
That's where I think Britain CAN have a prominent role towards peace.

ie. Avoid escalation of war in Afghanistan by using our experience with 'the troubles' in Northern Ireland.

<>

Who just happened to be wearing black uniforms in the main.

One of the problems with the Middle East situation is biased reporting. Typical of this is the Reuters report the other day which announced that Israel had launched a devastating attack and Hamas had responded with rockets. Kinda economical with facts there. Hamas have been launching up to 80 missiles and mortars a day into Israel for months now.

How tolerant would Britain have been if the Irish Government had been lobbing hundreds and thousands of missiles into Northern Ireland?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081228/D95BDA0G1.html

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) - Israeli warplanes rained more than 100 tons of bombs on security sites in Hamas-ruled Gaza Saturday and early Sunday, killing at least 230 people in one of the Mideast conflict's bloodiest assaults in decades. The government said the open-ended campaign was aimed at stopping rocket attacks that have traumatized southern Israel.

Most of the casualties were security forces, but Palestinian officials said at least 15 civilians were among the dead.

Both sides are bound to lie and exaggerate (don't all nations at war resort to propaganda?) and no doubt a lot of the reporting is biased. The conditions are exactly right for the destruction of trust. Ideal conditions to generate hatred and the fundamentalist passion for revenge. There must be moderates on both sides breaking their hearts about what's happening - powerless to do anything to stop it. Moderates listen to moderates and fundamentalists listen to fundamentalists and, as atrocities pile up, the only people likely to change their philosophy, are the moderates. It must be very hard to stay calm and reasonable when it's your own who are dying.

The last BBC news I listened to reported 300 rockets from Hamas killed one Israeli and the bombing response of Israel killed 280 Palestinians. Regardless of who tells the biggest whoppers, there are clearly terrible things happening - and likely worse to come. I wouldn't want to be an Israeli or a Palestinian. What a nightmare they must be living. Poor so and sos.

> Hamas have been launching up to 80 missiles and mortars a day into Israel for months now.

Check the plank in your own eye - Hamas have not been shelling Israel for "months"; a peace treaty was brokered back in June and "expired" earlier this month after which Hamas resumed their attacks on Israel citing Israel's blockade of Gaza as.

And despite your claim about biased reporting, all the news reports I saw (BBC, Sky News) made it clear that Israel's bombing was in response to attacks by Hamas.

"citing Israel's blockade of Gaza as the reason" that should have read.

Really? http://www.thebulletin.us/articles/2008/06/26/middle%20east:%20david%20bedein%20%20/19805398.txt

<>