Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Internationalism? Glad you asked.

WarOne wrote:Conflict can be by definition not a terribly violent and bloody murderous encounter. Competition such as bidding for futures oil contracts occurs on a daily basis, but you don't see people shooting nukes at each other because one person from the United States outbidded a barrel of oil from a Chinese guy because they believe the oil will be more expensive in the future.

Why have you defined all possible contact as a competition for resources? That's a really odd and narrow viewpoint. The most prosperous times in history have been times of great trade and connected societies. Right now humanity is at its most prosperous, with its greatest levels of contact between cultures. It isn't a coincidence.

History is ripe with destruction and war and death and famine and disease.

Yes, but history is long and complex, the story of many billions of people - it's ripe with a lot of everything.

But basically, according to the WHO there's about 1.5 million people killed every year. According to the CIA factbook about 55 million people die each year, so you're looking at a tick under 3% of all deaths coming from violence. And when you consider most of those deaths are internal matters, not relating to clashing cultures, there's little support for the idea of violence between cultures being anywhere near as pre-eminent as you claim.

sebster wrote:Why have you defined all possible contact as a competition for resources? That's a really odd and narrow viewpoint. The most prosperous times in history have been times of great trade and connected societies. Right now humanity is at its most prosperous, with its greatest levels of contact between cultures. It isn't a coincidence.

I do not define all possible contact as a competition of resources. I defined conflict in relative terms as a very real and very widespread occurence of this world in which people who disagree become involved in some sort of activity that runs counter to the person in question they have problems with.

I will partially agree with you on the most prosperous times of history have been times of great trade and connected societies. Also look at the cost of such a definiton. There are those who suffer because larger geo-politically powerful nations get what they want and those poorer nations suffer. Within national borders, there are people who also suffer because of the trade and connections that make our times appear prosperous. We could also look very prosperous because the magnitude in which people participate in a global trade network have expanded by exponential degrees since time innumerable when one cave-man traded a caved-in skull for another cave-man's wife. The point is that the perception of prosperity is valid for those who are currently experiencing it; there are always those who will not prosper and therefore hold a very different opinion on the matter. I try to straddle the middle road on this issue, but of course I am also attempting to define conflicts and contact as well. So let me get into that matter a bit more:

It is the nature of living organisms to survive. Granted, there are creatures that live in a mutualistic relationship with one another and some who do not interfere with one another, but chalk me up as one of those people who sees that what I have and what another person have are two very different things. One cannot look upon another and think they are exactly alike. One also does not do things that does not work against others or helps others. Our relative way of existing means that something we do will affect something else. I define that we live in conflict with one another because no two people share the same goals. We have general interests and beliefs, but from one person to another it is never the same. Friction occurs at such intervals and if it gets worse, progresses towards a conflict of some sort.

For instance, I am not purporting that because I believe that my interpretation of Warhammer 40k rules is correct and it is an absolute belief that the next person who disagrees with me in even the slightest way will get his arms hacked off. I am saying is that there will be some sort of disagreement, which is a conflict. Perhaps we can come to a mutual understanding without loss of limbs.

sebster wrote:But basically, according to the WHO there's about 1.5 million people killed every year. According to the CIA factbook about 55 million people die each year, so you're looking at a tick under 3% of all deaths coming from violence. And when you consider most of those deaths are internal matters, not relating to clashing cultures, there's little support for the idea of violence between cultures being anywhere near as pre-eminent as you claim.

Well, I think I did state but not with proper grammar the fact that conflict does not need blood.

Like right now because we are in disagreement over my definitions of conflict, you and I are currently engaged in conflict. Now have I gone over to your house and murdered everything I see? No? Why not? That is because I will not. This conflict has not escalated to violent and bloody murder.

Now you bring up a very interesting figure about the statistical deaths of how many who die to violence.

Those are the number of people who have died to conflict, but what about the people who are affected by definition a conflict with causes instability and possibly violence?

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/PROJECTS/STRATEGIES/EXTLICUS/0,,menuPK:511784~pagePK:64171540~piPK:64171528~theSitePK:511778,00.html

Ignoring the World Bank's little spin on how it saves the world, they suggest a figure that says 600 MILLION people are adversely affected by conflict somewhere in this world. That is a report that looks like from 2007, so since then I assume that figure may be a bit off. But the point is that conflict does not have to equate to death. It has broader rammifications than simply the end of one's life.

Kilkrazy wrote:I hope we've given Tony The Guardsman enough material to start his essay.

Yup,and what you 've given me is much more than what I needed

Thank you so much people!