What are your ideas, that if you could implement would likely stop our species from warring so much?

I’m asking for a reasonable ones, but if not - at least make them funny :P

  • @NewDark
    link
    352 years ago

    Restructure society to value cooperatation over competition.

    Break down unjustifiable hierarchies where possible and reasonable. The flatter the power structure is without sacrificing much in the way of efficiency, the better.

    • Torres
      link
      8
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      I feel like this is the way. It’s more or less the idea with the EU, and I would say it’s working great. I just hope this level of cooperation reaches the whole world

  • @redballooon
    link
    22
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Rename to “armed conflict” or “special military operations”

  • @Colt420
    link
    152 years ago

    How about massive free psychedelic doses?

  • KluEvo
    link
    142 years ago

    This is something my old history teacher once mentioned: we have games like COD and other esports titles. Just have all conflicts resolved via virtual combat instead of in real world violence

    • *Tagger*
      link
      202 years ago

      But that would require the loser to accept the loss.

      • pancakes
        link
        fedilink
        42 years ago

        The equivalent to someone losing and breaking their controller in this scenario is them invading the other country.

      • ivanafterall
        link
        fedilink
        22 years ago

        Yeah, now instead of a controller launched at an expensive TV after rage-quitting, you’ve got ICBMs flying after Biden gets Putin with the Last Stand + Martyrdom perk combo.

  • @wabafee
    link
    13
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Mass extinction event. Breed out aggression from our species we seem to be doing that but slowly. Space mining could potentially stop us from having war in Earth at least. AI takeover have everyone live on their own virtual reality paradise. For the most reasonable I think the best way to end wars is education and uplifting poverty nations not exploit them.

    Edit: Or we can just be like Switzerland be a direct democracy, with how slow they decide things it will be highly unlikely to go to war at all.

  • @Barns
    link
    132 years ago

    Kill everyone. No people, no wars! Win/win in my book

    • szczurOP
      link
      fedilink
      12 years ago

      It certainly is a way… although I don’t feel like we would greatly benefit from it!

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        12 years ago

        That’s moving the goal posts. Though killing everyone might fall under the “unreasonable” part of the question.

  • @T156
    link
    132 years ago

    Make everyone bulletproof and bombproof. If it is no longer possible to kill people using weapons of war, then there will no longer be a point to fighting the wars. Either that, or things will escalate to a point where it is no longer sustainable to fight wars that way, also solving it. Mind control, or gelatinising everyone into a singular hivemind is also an option.


    Somewhat more realistically, I think that exchanges and the internet are the ways to go when it comes to ending wars. It’s a lot harder to fight wars when you can empathise with the other side, and see them as your peers. It’s one of the reasons why soldiers who took part in the Christmas Armistice were shuffled around, since they became friendly during the ceasefire, and would be less wanting to fire weapons on the friends that they made.

    A lot of wars tend to centre around dehumnaising the other side, and treating them as the “enemy”. Allowing people to co-operate and communicate mutually makes it a lot harder for that to take place, since you have experience with the “enemy”, they’re not that bad. You’ve even got friends there, and training a gun on them with the expectation and desire to turn them into a corpse is just not on.

    • Zloubida
      link
      12 years ago

      Allowing people to co-operate and communicate mutually makes it a lot harder for that to take place, since you have experience with the “enemy”, they’re not that bad.

      That’s why I believe Esperanto, while evidently not enough by itself, is a necessary tool in the fight for world peace.

    • @eatthecake
      link
      42 years ago

      Through evolution or genetic engineering

      • Hangry
        link
        fedilink
        02 years ago

        I agree with genetics engineering as the answer.
        Our DNA has greed, power tripping, paranoia etc. hard coded somewhere. The correct combinations might stop all wars.
        But all in all, wouldn’t it make humanity dull and unsatisfied? I wonder.

        • @eatthecake
          link
          52 years ago

          What if we genetically engineered ourselves to make beans taste like lasagna and kindness feel as satisfying as getting a promotion?

          • Hangry
            link
            fedilink
            12 years ago

            I’d argue that humanity is humanity and we wouldn’t remove its complex emotions, philosophical wonders and existential dread.
            Desire for more out of life, search of meaning, etc.
            Unless we go all the way and engineer ever flowing euphoria from birth to death, for everyone. But then, what’s even the point?

          • Hangry
            link
            fedilink
            1
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            Eugenics is often conflated with “selective breeding”, which is pretty justified, given all the derives from the twentieth century.
            Today, whether we should include CRISPR and so under the umbrella of eugenics is still open for debate.
            The term of Transhumanism may be more relevant in this specific topic, as for Wikipedia’s definition,

            Transhumanism is a philosophical and intellectual movement which advocates the enhancement of the human condition by developing and making widely available sophisticated technologies that can greatly enhance longevity and cognition.

            On a personal note I think that all in all, defining what are the " good genes to add, remove, or keep" in the human pool is definitely a delicate matter, 100% biased by our cultural differences and steps fully in the endless philosophical field.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      22 years ago

      Yeah, I’m with this guy

      I think if we had someone with charisma start a suicide cult, things would generally improve… I’m Trevor to make a Joe gRogan joke, but I’m actually at least half-serious

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    122 years ago

    Very easy. Global thermonuclear war. That should make sure that the remaining humans (if any) don’t need to fight over resources for at least a few generations.

    • ScrumblesPAbernathy
      link
      fedilink
      62 years ago

      I bet I could convince you that there are no winners in global thermonuclear war with just 1000 games of tic tac toe.

    • @blue_zephyr
      link
      12 years ago

      You’re delusional if you think we wouldn’t be at each other’s troaths over those last resources.

  • Dufurson
    link
    fedilink
    122 years ago

    Implantation of the post-scarcity society and the end of capitalism ez gg

  • @Reliant1087
    link
    122 years ago

    Universal basic income, universal food and shelter and education.

    • borkcorkedforks
      link
      fedilink
      22 years ago

      Yeah, most wars are about resources so becoming a post-scarcity would go a long way.

      • @Reliant1087
        link
        12 years ago

        Exactly. At least an average person won’t sign up to get shot at.

  • macniel
    link
    fedilink
    102 years ago

    Abolish Money and increase global distribution of goods aka socialism.

    • @buycurious
      link
      142 years ago

      Ah yes, the Star Trek approach.

      • @T156
        link
        52 years ago

        Although it did take them at least one apocalypse, alien intervention, and 200 - 300 years before they actually got around to it.

    • @alokir
      link
      English
      72 years ago

      That would probably create more reasons for people/groups to go to war with each other than it eliminates.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      4
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      And who decides who has to produce those goods for everyone? Also who decides who gets how much? … Probably some kind of war. :)

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      12 years ago

      And when groups of people make up their own currency and start gambling and trading to build up underground empires?

  • @Hazdaz
    link
    102 years ago

    There is no solution to that. It is a cold, hard reality of living on a planet with limited resources. We all might hate war (and for good reason, obviously), but it isn’t like animals don’t fight for territory either. Just happens that humans found a way to make it a few orders of magnitude more extreme.

  • fernandu00
    link
    fedilink
    92 years ago

    Make those who declare war to actually fight the war. Put the two countries president on each side of an arena with some swords to fight to death, the one who lives wins the war. I’d record and pay pee view or something and the money raised would pay for homes for the poor in each country