Genocide, will the war crime one day be a neccessity? (thoughts wanted)

[Exo Etherial]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/2002/disposable_planet/

The link is a to a rather relevent story. More or less bringing up the issues facing the planet (and those living upon it) today.

Genocide, the word is taboo in conventional conversation. Bringing up thoughts of WWII, the atrocities of the Nazi party of Germany, the massacres of Kambodia, Bosnia, and others attempting to wipe out entire cultures in the name of hatred and predjudice. But, will this crime agaisnt human diversity one day be a regular occurence for the future and well being for humanity a whole? Are entire cultures to be wiped from the face of the earth just so people like you or I can continue to eat and feed our present and future families in comfort? Is the future to be like the past in that the idealism and the sanctity of life will no longer be for all?

I, unfortunately, have to say yes. I have to see beyond my own petty emotions, and peer beyond the soul until only the flesh, a competitor, remains.

The lifestyle of many developed western countries is unsustainable upon the scale of the current world-wide population. And the western countries WITH those lifestyles would resist giving them up.

You may deem me a monster when I say that money for food aid to a country that cannot support itself (or human life in general) would be better invested in offering quick death. You might even be right. . .

[Dante]

It is inevitable that cultures will eventually die out. It just happens quicker with the genocide. Thus massacres are really not very important in the big picture.

Besides, what obligation do we have to aid those worse off than ourselves anyway? Do we get anything for it? Wouldn't it be far better to just give them the ability to help themselves and then stand back to watch them do it themselves?

And then, when the richer fifth of the world collapses in on itself, the situation will be reversed, and everyone will revert to a feudal system, killing each other. Thus the strongest will survive and it begins again. :)

In other words, it's inevitable that we're going to die so why slow or speed up the process?

[Edric O]

Dust Scout, you don't seem to understand the situation. These aren't people who just *happen* to be worse off than us. These are people who are hungry because we are stealing their food. Not literraly, of course, but the whole reason why they are so poor is because WE (the rich countries of the west) are using up 80% of the Earth's resources, even though we have only 20% of its population. So the vast majority of the people of the world must live off meager scraps.

Since WE are the ones who are causing this mess in the first place, it is OUR responsibility to solve it.

But sending aid is only a partial and temporary fix. In the long run, it won't improve much. The only solution is to find a different way of managing the Earth's resources. Our current system, global capitalism, is the one responsible for causing this immense gap between rich and poor, and this ridiculously unjust utilisation of resources.

The ONLY long-term solution to this chronic problem is to find a global system which is better than capitalism. And we need to do it quickly. If we don't, the global economy will eventually collapse, and people will start killing each other like they did hundreds of years ago. But things won't go the way Dust Scout predicted. We have hugely powerful weapons now. We have enough nuclear warheads to destroy the world several times over. If our civilization falls into chaos, there will be no second chance. The nuclear missiles will fly, and Homo Sapiens will go extinct.

[Dude_Doc]

But, will this crime agaisnt human diversity one day be a regular occurence for the future and well being for humanity a whole?

They say that Mother Nature has it's own ways. That people dies because they have to, to bring balance to the Earth, so that there won't be too many humans. And if not humans killing humans, Nature will use it's own weapon: deceases. In this case, fate has much to it and we are powerless.

On the other hand, if we knew that the massacre of people would help the whole human race either now or in the future, I can't say that is a negative thing.

But, what I can see, those people who died so many years ago, and people who are still dying today, are not "positive deaths" in any way.

Besides, what obligation do we have to aid those worse off than ourselves anyway? Do we get anything for it? Wouldn't it be far better to just give them the ability to help themselves and then stand back to watch them do it themselves?

I see you are not a theist. Well, what do we gain on helping others? A better world perhaps? Morality, the feeling that you have helped people to at least survive today? I mean, why do you help, when it occurs, your friends when they need help?

In other words, it's inevitable that we're going to die so why slow or speed up the process?

With that logic, one could as well jump out of the window, instead of living the whole life. Yes, why extend our lives when death is so close? Hell, we are still going to die anyways, so why prolong the process ::)

We have enough nuclear warheads to destroy the world several times over. If our civilization falls into chaos, there will be no second chance. The nuclear missiles will fly, and Homo Sapiens will go extinct.

Always the pacifist. If not communism, then the world will end, won't it Edric?

Yes, if the Global Network would collapse tomorrow, many things would happen. But I don't think "homo sapiens would become extinct". We would simply go back, a new Dark Age, one with city-states, governments comprehendable to its citizens.

[Caid Ivik]

That article is bringing up old questions of life space, which was really actual in neopagan Germany of 1930s. But don't you think that our world is slightly different? Today it isn't ok to attack one country just because they did it to us before or just because they have a vast land without population. Considering genocide as a way to stabilise world demography is same evil as agreeing with euthanasy and abortions. Maybe there could be some another way, maybe to teach children that it isn't ok to sleep with first girl you encounter.

[Dante]

So we can sleep with the first boy we encounter? ;)

I see you are not a theist. Well, what do we gain on helping others? A better world perhaps? Morality, the feeling that you have helped people to at least survive today? I mean, why do you help, when it occurs, your friends when they need help?

No, I'm not a theist. And I'll help my friends, sure. But the masses? The general populence? Who cares about them? Not me. Morality. Pff.

With that logic, one could as well jump out of the window, instead of living the whole life. Yes, why extend our lives when death is so close? Hell, we are still going to die anyways, so why prolong the process

I said "Why slow or speed up the process." In other words, don't jump out the window because that is speeding it up. When you die, you die. It happens. Inevitability is something that people seem surprisingly unable to accept considering it's perhaps the one thing they should.

Ok; perhaps we caused their poverty. ... ... ... So what? Your point? What do I care? Life isn't fair (Death, on the other hand, is very fair). Why should we attempt to change that? Because it was our fault? So give them the ability to help themselves and then watch them go all warm and happy bacause despite the aid coming from us they did all the work themselves.

Personally I like the idea of going back to the dark ages. Or at least creating a new era. Feudal lords, fighting in the streets, chaos! Anarchy! Monarchism! Whoopee! I'd love it!

Of course those damn nuclear warheads would most likely spoil that... >:( Stupid warheads...

[nampigai]

hmmm I hope that some of the views in here are sarcastic otherwise some people have some pretty fucked up views on their fellow humans.

[Dante]

Fellow humans. Pff. Very few of my above opinions are sarcastic. If any...

[Edric O]

Always the pacifist. If not communism, then the world will end, won't it Edric?

I didn't say communism. I said something better than capitalism. So far, yes, the only known system which fits that description is communism. But there's always the possibility that a new system will be invented.

And we have the same choice that we always had, at every stage of our history. Either we move on and adapt ourselves to new situations by changing our social and economic system, or we stubbornly cling to the old system and the old ideas. The second option is also known as stagnation. And stagnation is death. Stagnation destroyed some of the greatest civilizations and superpowers of the world, from the Roman Empire to the Soviet Union.

Yes, if the Global Network would collapse tomorrow, many things would happen. But I don't think "homo sapiens would become extinct". We would simply go back, a new Dark Age, one with city-states, governments comprehendable to its citizens.

Weapons of mass destruction don't just vanish into thin air, Dude_Doc. Dark Ages involve a state of almost perpetual war, in which everyone fights everyone else. Add to that our current stocks of nuclear warheads, and what do you get? What happens when warring city-states are armed with nuclear missiles? Total nuclear war, that's what happens.

[Dude_Doc]

Ok; perhaps we caused their poverty. ... ... ... So what? Your point? What do I care? Life isn't fair (Death, on the other hand, is very fair).

Well, those are your views. But I guarantee that you would've cared if you were poor and another person would say what you've said.

I didn't say communism. I said something better than capitalism.

Okay, what political systems do we have to choose from today: fascism, capitalism, feudalism, and communism. Obviously, you meant communism. ::)

So far, yes, the only known system which fits that description is communism. But there's always the possibility that a new system will be invented.

I find it unlikely that a new system would develop within the next 100 years, at least.

Weapons of mass destruction don't just vanish into thin air, Dude_Doc. Dark Ages involve a state of almost perpetual war, in which everyone fights everyone else.

I meant an age where the global network does not exist, which is also refered to as "Dark Age".

Add to that our current stocks of nuclear warheads, and what do you get? What happens when warring city-states are armed with nuclear missiles? Total nuclear war, that's what happens.

Okay, so if the global network would've disappear tomorrow, then you and everybody else would go and kill each other? No. Of course there would still be nuclear warheads, but would superpowers use them, like say, like in a game? No. They have no reason to. Of course wars would become more harch, but just nuking each other to death - no, not likely.

[Duncan_ghola]

Communism and capitalism both have their flaws, in my opinion communism has more flaws, there would be no point to life in a world of communism although that would make everything equal... why become a doctor or something else requiring years of study when you can dig holes your whole life and make the same wage? Capitalism doesnt work well either, there is a huge gap between the upper class and the lower class and thats the way capitalism works, thats why africa i so screwed up, we screwed everything up in africa by imperializing it, sending food isnt guna help at all in the long run and using that money to kill is even worse because that doesnt get rid of the problem. Its not likely things are guna change, why would the powerful and rich let things change that wont benefit them? Why would there be more genocide? thats why we have history, to learn from our mistakes and prevent them, problems will most likely arise with different faces but we arent ignorant to detect them, and the only thing of real importance that has changed since the last milenium or so are weapons of mass destruction, but i doubt they will be used in all out war, unless... nevermind, i cant predict the future, fools always go into power and thats one thing that hasn't changes over the centuries

oh crap.. i didnt read the link.. but i still dont think we could go as far as genocide, no one would allow it, unless its done secretly by some lethal virus or disease

[Edric O]

why become a doctor or something else requiring years of study when you can dig holes your whole life and make the same wage?

WHY is this misconception so widespread? I've heard it hundreds of times already... But it is utterly false. Communism does NOT give everyone a completely equal pay! Communism guarantees the basic necessities (food, water, shelter, education and healthcare) to every human being, and ensures public property over the means of production. But it does not make the brain surgeon earn the same amount of money as a desk clerk. The differences won't be too big, but they will exist.

Someone who works harder or better, or who had to go through years of training for his job, brings a greater benefit to society than someone who doesn't. Therefore, he will also be rewarded more. (and remember: it will not be possible to use money as capital any more, so the problems of capitalism will no longer exist)

But anyway, let's get back on topic...

[Caid Ivik]

To be sure, communist utopy means end of money as carrier of value itself. Communism will give you what you do need, so you won't need money. Question of luxuries would from my view be solved by productivity of collective. But still, from Marx' view there is no difference between a doctor of medicine and hole-digger. That's why in Lenin's and Hitler's regimes were erected so many statues of "proletar workers". Equality...

But anyway, whole this poverty isn't because those more studying have higher wages. Fact is that ethiopian fields aren't so fertile as panonian steppe, and if they just feel demographic explosion, it is impossible to maintain food for everyone. People feel only misery, alcohol isn't available so they try to drown misery in sex. And now why whole Africa dies of AIDS, syfilis why there are so many hunger children thrown to street. Those people fully lack morale!

[Edric O]

Yeah, Hitler's regime was very egalitarian... ::) And they built statues of workers, didn't they? Right next to those beautiful statues of Jews... ::)

[/sarcasm]

Seriously, Caid, do you mind if you stop lying so much? "...from Marx' view there is no difference between a doctor of medicine and hole-digger..." - LOL! At least stop putting words in other people's mouths.

[nampigai]

I'm disgusted that anyone can justify genocide. They should be allowed to stay in a KZ camp or Gulag for half a year, and have all their family slaughtered.

If people stop carrieng, then there isn't really any thing to live for is there? I'm so fed up with all this selfishness, gimme gimme gimme, I don't care if other people suffer as long as I'm allright. Well that's rather easy to say if you were born with a silverspoon up your arse.

I'm disgusted by this behaviour some people should be ashamed, but then again, I guess you should need morals and ethic to be ashamed.

[Dante]

Ok; perhaps we caused their poverty. ... ... ... So what? Your point? What do I care? Life isn't fair (Death, on the other hand, is very fair).

Well, those are your views. But I guarantee that you would've cared if you were poor and another person would say what you've said.

True. But I'm not. And I try not to deal with hypothetical situations.

Ethics. Morals. Why do we have them? What good do they serve? Do they bring profit? Not usually. Do they make us happy? Only when we give in to their incessant demands, rather like drugs. Do they bring satisfaction? No, in fact they deliberately make us feel inadequate for not doing enough. Why bother?

Survival of the fittest. Social Darwinism. People die. It happens. We caused it. Get over it. Everyone dies in the end, it's just that some people have to go through a longer waiting period.

Many people see this view as Nazist, or discriminatory. It's not. Nazism and it's fellow foul systems hate people disciminantly. And as I have said before, I loathe discrimination. I hate the people indiscriminantly. No matter who they are or what they do.

Individuals on the other hand I can deal with. Friends, enemies, family, enemy's family, these people are individuals, they have personalities, I can relate to them.

The masses, however, have no collective personality that doesn't annoy me. Why should I care for the masses? What have they ever done for me? This view is selfish, yes. Cruel, probably. But what's wrong with that? These are views that the masses have imposed on me anyway to protect themselves. And I hate them all the more for it.

[nampigai]

again DustScout, I'ld copy and paste my last post but it wouldn't matter. You have your view and I don't wanna impose my view onto you. I just find your view disgusting.

When I see hunger, small children in africa not getting food and dying, it moves me. When I see people crying for their loss in a bomb attack, it moves me. When I loose my dog, it moves me.

[Caid Ivik]

Yeah, Hitler's regime was very egalitarian... ::) And they built statues of workers, didn't they? Right next to those beautiful statues of Jews... ::)

Seriously, Caid, do you mind if you stop lying so much? "...from Marx' view there is no difference between a doctor of medicine and hole-digger..." - LOL! At least stop putting words in other people's mouths.

You can't see much of Hitler's art in Germany, but go to Rome's newer parts (i.e.near trapist monastery) and you'll see an ode to manual work which you wouldn't find even on 1st may parades.

About Marx I wasn't quoting him, but his system is such. Today it souns nearly laughably weird, but word "bourgeois intelligent" was in 60s considered as an insult.

[Edric O]

Dust Scout, you know my opinion of your views. They are disgusting, sickening, immoral to the extreme... But then again, you don't believe in morals, do you...

There's just one thing I'd like to add to what Namp said: If everyone thought the way you do, Dust Scout, we'd still be in the stone age, clobbering each other for a piece of raw meat.

Moral values are the basis of any functioning society. Without morals, there can be no society, and therefore there can be no culture, no science and no civilization.

What have the masses done for you? They have given you the life that you currently live! Look around for a while. How many of the objects around you were invented by yourself? How many of those objects would you still have if it were not for human society and civilization? NONE (with the exception of a few wooden sticks, maybe). You reap the benefits of 5000 years of human history. Without society, without those masses that you despise so much, you would now be living in a cave, wrapped in animal fur.

[Dante]

I don't like the life I live. Neither do I like the assumption that every human being should automatically care for every other. I loathe humanity. Nobody has yet given me reason to do otherwise.

I do worry sometimes that I'll become some kind of monster one day. I just hope my self control is strong enough to stop me acting on my disgust for humanity. It's not that I'd care, but the consequences on myself would be inevitable.

I know I depend on society for everything I have. Why should I acknowledge that? It's not like they acknowledge me.

Frankly, I'd rather not be human. I dislike society and I dislike most people. I dislike people in general and I find morals and ethics usless emotional blindfolds. I'd rather just slip into my own fantasy land, content in the knowledge that I wouldn't miss your emotional codswallop and you wouldn't miss my selfish ranting.

Unfortunately that is not an option so I'll just have to get through this DETESTABLE reality as quickly as I can and then die.

[Duncan_ghola]

anways, i would like to add something about communism, like you said there isnt much of a difference in wage between a doctor and a guy who digs holes, but why will a doctor even try to discover a cure for aids or cancer when theres nothing in it for him thats the problem the chinese faced with their farmers, no one has anything to gain, so why work harder? communism will take his cure away and sell it for cheap, and the doctor probably gets nothing more than the satisfaction of discovering the cure. Capitalism doesnt work well either, the cure will cost so much that most infected with the disease wont be able to afford the cure.

[SurlyPIG]

Dust Scout, you don't seem to understand the situation. These aren't people who just *happen* to be worse off than us. These are people who are hungry because we are stealing their food. Not literraly, of course, but the whole reason why they are so poor is because WE (the rich countries of the west) are using up 80% of the Earth's resources, even though we have only 20% of its population. So the vast majority of the people of the world must live off meager scraps.

Since WE are the ones who are causing this mess in the first place, it is OUR responsibility to solve it.

Hmpf. We do not play such a role in their misery.

Almost all suffering in the world can be linked to either bad leadership (which includes religion) or overpopulation. Is it us who starves the Arabs in the Middle East or is it the fact that Abu al-Assat Mohammed's religion encourages him to have nine kids? Do we cause children to die on the streets of Rio or is it because the Brazilian government doesn't even recognize 93% of Brazil's population as people? Genuine immoral examples of Western exploitation are few and far between compared to the enslavement and opression of dictators and religion in third-world countries.

But sending aid is only a partial and temporary fix. In the long run, it won't improve much. The only solution is to find a different way of managing the Earth's resources. Our current system, global capitalism, is the one responsible for causing this immense gap between rich and poor, and this ridiculously unjust utilisation of resources.

Did you say global capitalism? Such a thing does not exist. Globalisation has destroyed the idea of capitalism. What we have is nationalistic pseudo-capitalism in which entire countries compete as entities instead of as individuals and companies. Capitalism is only fair within the borders of a country. Global capitalism would require a global government, or at least global standards for trade and all public services, especially education.

[Anathema]

Hmpf. We do not play such a role in their misery.

Almost all suffering in the world can be linked to either bad leadership (which includes religion) or overpopulation. Is it us who starves the Arabs in the Middle East or is it the fact that Abu al-Assat Mohammed's religion encourages him to have nine kids? Do we cause children to die on the streets of Rio or is it because the Brazilian government doesn't even recognize 93% of Brazil's population as people? Genuine immoral examples of Western exploitation are few and far between compared to the enslavement and opression of dictators and religion in third-world countries.

If you were living in a third world country you'd likely raise 9 kids as well, not for religious reasons but practical ones. There are no retirement funds or any of that stuff in such countries and the only way to ensure you're not going to die in the gutter when you're to old to work is raise enough offspring to support you later- and you'd need sons for that, daughters are bluntly said useless to their parents. And because people have so damn many kids, the population grows faster then the economy and everybody ends up worse.

Granted, the days of colonial exploitation are over but the damage is already done. The vast majority of third world countries are former colonies of western nations, who eventually left those colonies with coffers full of money while leaving the population without the education or means to build a modern society.

Another thing that aversely affects the development of these countries is the "brain drain". Doctors or other highly educated people raised in third world countries migrate to western nations because they are paid more over there- and western nations happily take these people in.

[Caid Ivik]

Arabs are specifical. They are in ethernal standoff with Jews. As Talmud preferred 7 children per family, sunna better put quota to 9. Middle East is a giant demographical battleground. But to be sure, excluding water, there are enough resources for everyone. Real poverty can be seen in India and black Africa.

[Edric O]

why will a doctor even try to discover a cure for aids or cancer when theres nothing in it for him

There IS something in it for him. In communism, everyone who discovers or invents something that benefits society will be rewarded. The difference from capitalism is that the reward, although large, will be one-time only. You won't be able to draw endless profit from just a single good idea. This way, you are motivated to come up with even more good ideas.

Hmpf. We do not play such a role in their misery.

Almost all suffering in the world can be linked to either bad leadership (which includes religion) or overpopulation. Is it us who starves the Arabs in the Middle East or is it the fact that Abu al-Assat Mohammed's religion encourages him to have nine kids? Do we cause children to die on the streets of Rio or is it because the Brazilian government doesn't even recognize 93% of Brazil's population as people? Genuine immoral examples of Western exploitation are few and far between compared to the enslavement and opression of dictators and religion in third-world countries.

You're talking about deliberately caused suffering. Of course that's mostly due to local factors, like you said. But there's also the suffering caused as a side effect of other activities. Corporations don't starve people on purpose, it's just a side effect of their relentless quest for profit at any cost.

The west doesn't directly kill people in 3rd world countries; it just takes away their resources and leaves them impoverished. As a result of poverty, people die.

Did you say global capitalism? Such a thing does not exist. Globalisation has destroyed the idea of capitalism. What we have is nationalistic pseudo-capitalism in which entire countries compete as entities instead of as individuals and companies.

Err, no. Countries play a less and less important role. The nation-state is dying. Transnational corporations are taking its place. The competition is between corporations now. The class distinctions are between countries (or, to be more exact, regions).