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

  • wabafee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year 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.

      • Hangry @lm.helilot.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year 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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

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

          • Hangry @lm.helilot.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year 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?

  • Kir@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The question is ill-posed.

    War is just a tool, a collective act of violence that a group of people do against another in order to obtain a result. It’s always sad and it’s always bring sufference, but one could say sometimes it’s necessary. If you cancel war from the world witouth changin anything else, you will ends up probably damagin more the one with actually less power, since violence is usually the last resort in order to confront someone that hold political, economical and soft power upon you.

    If you wanted to ask how we go to a situation when wars are not necessary and they are actually the less convenient and effective way to obtain collective or personal results, so that we ends up with no actual war are started, here’s my answer. We need to build a system that minimize close to zero the difference in power (every kind of power) between people, and we need to build an efficient an relieble system to intermediate and resolve the inevitable conflict between people and groups.

  • shandrakor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Since you stipulated our species, to me, the answer is an external threat to the whole. Aliens, higher or lower dimensional creatures, cryptids, flame unicorns sharting lava, even angels or demons if we want to get real wild.

    Even just the threat of an existential terror such as these and probably a lot I missed, (feel free to add to the list! Feed me your existential threats!) has the potential to bring the species together to fight on a larger scale.

    However this doesn’t eliminate war just moves the focus. So I’m not sure if I’ve answered your question or not but I had fun doing it!

    • whenigrowup356@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I feel like the cultural/political responses to both global warming and COVID-19 have shaken my faith in this sort-of Watchmen scenario working out. No matter how universal the threat, seems like some groups will always find an angle to work that cuts against the “greater good.”

  • NewDark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year 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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year 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

  • Yolk@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    When there’s no war, people like Hitler won’t have any opposition to their rise to power. Haiti never gains independence. We’d never have escaped feudalism.

    Most wars are stupid bullshit and suck ass. The military, especially the US military, is the biggest waste of money ever. That doesn’t mean that war isn’t directly tied to lots of positive things like innovation. There’s so much medical, industrial, and geographical knowledge we wouldn’t have if it wasn’t for some war, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. People’s ideas will always conflict because different groups of people are going to have goals unique to them that clash with others

    Now if you were to ask how to stop unnecessary wars, better more efficient rulers. Most of the people in power today are complete hacks. It’s crazy

    But I don’t think we’ll ever get rid of war and I don’t know if that’s necessarily that crazy? Ultimately it’s apart of how we grow as societies

  • Niello@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    There is this dystopia anime series called From the New World. The premise is a portion of humanity gained psychic power and led to the collapse of society because it’s so powerful that order could not be enforced. Far into the future there’s a cluster of communities that’s able to exist, and the way they went about it was to genetically engineered humans so when they harm another human it triggers body functions that make it harder for them to breath and other things. Killing another human also kills the aggressor. It kind of works on the interpretative level so it’s possible that using drones could still have an effect, probably.

    Even in the story they explored ways to circumvent it though, but that’s kind of a tangent.

  • b1_@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Send everyone in charge to an Enya concert. “We can sail, we can sail, With the Orinoco flow…”

  • Ignacio [he/him]@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    A death match between the presidents / prime ministers of the rival countries. The country of the winner of that match will win the war, and the country of the loser has to deal with the following consequences.

    • Machefi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I once asked my dad, wouldn’t it be better if wars were determined by rock-paper-scissors? He explained, that even if, the citizens of the losing country would probably get so upset, they would take matters into their own hands and start a riot, which would effectively lead to regular war.

      (He explained it better than that, but it was long ago and I only remember the general sense of what he said)