Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Perhaps the answer isn't right or left... maybe it's up?

irateplatypus · 09-19-2004, 12:10 PM

Ok, hear me out.

when people first started to band together in groups there were tribe-to-tribe conflicts. people would kill eachother over hunting rights to a particular valley or to settle disputes about trade or women.

tribes banded together then civilization grows to city vs. city disputes...

cities join forces then nation fought against nation...

then alliances of nations vs. alliances of nations

now we're at the point where we wouldn't think of killing our neighbors for food, but the scale of conflict has grown outwards. today, human conflict is rarely fought on a local scale... but against political bodies across the globe.

it seems that human conflict has a myopic component to it. that conflict may be reduced if we could enlarge our view of how big the world is. instead of fighting over a piece of the resource pie (whether that be a valley, or a continent) we, for the first time, can think about working together to enlarge the total pie unendingly.

i'm proposing that space travel and space related development may be the panacea for the world's conflict ills. if all of humanity could expand our awareness of how big the world is to encompass something bigger than the rock we all stand on perhaps that would give us a better perspective on how much in common we all have.

i realize that there are some caveats. internal struggles are far from gone... civil war is still present in world politics. still, i believe that humanity has shown a consistent pattern of evolution on this.

the solution i'm pondering wouldn't necessarily have to be a massive reorganization of political boundaries, but it would entail more international coordination. typically international alliances are among the "ok, we promise not to kill eachother as we're agreed we'll kill them if either one of us is attacked" variety. of course, i'm being simplistic... but i hope you catch my meaning. if we worked on something besides a constant redefining of political alliances, perhaps it'd have a positive impact?

i know, i'm sounding like nothing more than a common dirty hippie.

but i think there might be some merit to this principle.

whaddya think TFP?

09-19-2004, 12:10 PM	#1 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	Perhaps the answer isn't right or left... maybe it's up? Ok, hear me out. when people first started to band together in groups there were tribe-to-tribe conflicts. people would kill eachother over hunting rights to a particular valley or to settle disputes about trade or women. tribes banded together then civilization grows to city vs. city disputes... cities join forces then nation fought against nation... then alliances of nations vs. alliances of nations now we're at the point where we wouldn't think of killing our neighbors for food, but the scale of conflict has grown outwards. today, human conflict is rarely fought on a local scale... but against political bodies across the globe. it seems that human conflict has a myopic component to it. that conflict may be reduced if we could enlarge our view of how big the world is. instead of fighting over a piece of the resource pie (whether that be a valley, or a continent) we, for the first time, can think about working together to enlarge the total pie unendingly. i'm proposing that space travel and space related development may be the panacea for the world's conflict ills. if all of humanity could expand our awareness of how big the world is to encompass something bigger than the rock we all stand on perhaps that would give us a better perspective on how much in common we all have. i realize that there are some caveats. internal struggles are far from gone... civil war is still present in world politics. still, i believe that humanity has shown a consistent pattern of evolution on this. the solution i'm pondering wouldn't necessarily have to be a massive reorganization of political boundaries, but it would entail more international coordination. typically international alliances are among the "ok, we promise not to kill eachother as we're agreed we'll kill them if either one of us is attacked" variety. of course, i'm being simplistic... but i hope you catch my meaning. if we worked on something besides a constant redefining of political alliances, perhaps it'd have a positive impact? i know, i'm sounding like nothing more than a common dirty hippie. but i think there might be some merit to this principle. whaddya think TFP? __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill Last edited by irateplatypus; 09-19-2004 at 12:28 PM..